Old School here to post a question on the term of balance. We all have our own opinions on which codices we feel are balanced and which are unbalanced - either in their own favor or against it. You can often hear the debates about codices after a long night of gaming at the FLGS and if someone didn't turn out the lights and force everyone out, they would still be going on.
.
You get the idea that some people just scream about an army being too powerful because they get beat by it a lot while you hear some arguements that sound realistic and some opinions that you are inclined to believe.
.
Now there are a couple ways an army can be unbalanced through its codex if you listen to all the hype. They can be way too powerful AND they can be way too way. Common examples are that many players at the FLGS and on the web say that Guard are way too powerful and are an unbalancing factor in the game - on the other side of the coin, it is spoken like general knowledge that Tau are uncompetitive and are unbalanced because they are so much weaker than other codices. Feel free to insert names like Orks, Space Wolves, Necrons, Blood Angels or any other codex you would like in there because at any given time somebody is saying it about one or another codices.
.
So this is my question to you: What codices do you think are unbalanced compared to the rest of the lot? Are they unbalanced in the powerful or the weak direction and, of course, why? Feel free to comment on the comments of others as well. hopefully we can see if there is an overall consensus or if this is relative to your local areas.
.
Of course I cannot post a question like this without my own opinion on the subject. First off, I think the player deserves some credit in the debate. A bad Guard general will lose most of the time and a good Tau general will win most of the time and I have seen it happen over and over again. I have been told the new Tyranid codex sucks and is weak and used to be inclined to beleive it, but I have a very good record with the new dex. I have also heard Chaos Daemons suck, but they have been in the top teir in my area for a long time in local tournaments and so have guard - though Guard also live in the bottom teir in our area.
.
I do think there are certain armies a novice can pick up and roll with and I think Guard is one of them due to all the firepower. I think Wolves and Space Marines fall into that catagory as well - while there are some armies that novices will have a sharp learning curve with like Dark Eldar, Tau and new Nids, but I think some armies are a little more forgiving than others while some take some getting used to. The main unbalancing factor I see is that some codexes are just old. I think Deamonhunters is so old and rigid that it has a hard time keeping up with the new kids. I think some codices benefit from age, like Dark Eldar with their supercheap Dark Lances or Sisters with their Immo Spam, two armies in one lists, but that just might be a matter of perspective.
.
So I thank you if you have read this wall of text and now turn it over to you - Feedback is welcome as always.
I think most people fail to understand balance. A lot of people will discuss balance and make their point by comparing unit A to unit B and it just doesn't work that way. Some go a step further and will compare one army's elites to another, or troops to troops, but again they are missing it. I find very few people who are able to look at an army as a whole, the good and the bad, and see where the balance is. It's just too damn easy to pick apart the new toys and special rules and overlook what they lose in order to gain that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, older codices are really the only ones that are unbalanced. Outdated rules and under/over priced units and wargear hurt these armies severely.
Thor, you bring up a great point. There are tons of people out there who will compare different units from different codices - I have been guilty of it before. "Hydras cost more than Rifleman Dreads, Guard are OP!" arguements like that are fairly common, but what they fail to address is the other options that exist in each codex, common stat lines, AVs ect. What I am interested in as well here is hearing some arguements from folks who think that there are some balance issues in the new codices and why they think so.
ReplyDeleteI am one of the folks that tends to look at specific units and whether they are over or underpowered. However, I use a slightly different criteria. I look at how often the unit is used. For example, in the Witch Hunter Codex, you will never see a list without multiple Exorcists. In fact they are pretty much the only heavy choice taken. This leads us to one of two conclusions: 1) the Exorcists is overpowered or 2) every other heavy choice in the WH codex is massively underpowered. A quick look at the Exorcists shows it to be a pretty sturdy heavy choice for its points, but certainly not over the top. In this case the heavy choices of the WH are just plain terrible. On the other hand, the Sisters Repentia of the same codex are flat out never seen in any list despite having sweet looking minis and really cool fluff. Anyone who has tried to field these girls will tell you they absolutely fail in all regards. For a more up to date example, the Space Wolf bloodclaws are rarely seen on the table, especially in competitive lists. On closer inspection, you can see that the bloodclaws CAN be nasty, but you have to trick them out just right and get them into the perfect position to do their thing. In comparision, the Grey Hunters are more consistant, more effective and more versatile for the exact same base cost (actually cheaper at the unit level due to not needing lots of extras to be effective).
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, how often you see a unit
(or codex) on the table can be a good indicator of how well balanced it is. You have to be careful though because it is only that, an indicator. You have to take into account all the things that others mention and yes, a Marine with a dull spoon is going to take down the average gamer geek with a chainsword in a matter of seconds. The ability of the player is always going to be a factor.
Something else that people fail to consider when comparing Codex A to Codex B and that is age. I've heard several people refer to the concept of "Codex creep" where by the newer codexes appear to be superior to older codexes. GW does an absolute insane amount of game testing when building a codex. That being said, they are still human and they miss things. Anyone remember when Rhino's didn't have specified access points?
ReplyDeleteNow, with all that said, there is one codex that I've dealt with recently that I do feel started out as very over powered when it was released, but now is under powered: Codex Daemonhunters.
When it was released in third Edition, Grey Knights were game makers. But they were an expensive Game Maker, and you didn't get enough of them to survive an "oopse" with them. Facing the Eldar, they could literally their best strengths, the Eldart Psychic abilities. with the then current CSM codex, the Daemons were what tended to make or break most CSM armies and the Daemonhunters absolutely wrecked them.
Now, in fifth edition, The Daemonhunters abilities have become vastly over priced for their effect, most of what made them game breakers have been lost and your left with over priced Space Marines with slightly better weapons.
oh, forgot to add this to the bottom:
ReplyDeleteCheck out my blog at: http://mgc-projects.info/Web_pages/people/Maverike_prime/
I think the unbalancing effect has more to do with the old codicies and How the rules don't jive with 5th addition. It seems the points cost on several thing old are in excess while new stuff is bargain basement. I have also seen the reemergence of "Hero Hammer" with 5th addition.
ReplyDelete2nd edition suffered from this and it was brought to heel with 3rd. Since I did not play 4th i can't say for sure but I know with 5th "hero Hammer" is making a comeback. Combine this with alot of character rules affecting the whole armies and units they are in and you get some over powered nonsense, especially when you are using a 4th edition codex.
I have to disagree a little with you on one point Torres. I never had any issues dealing with Grey knights with my Eldar :-)
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the cost of abilities and irrelevant some of them are now in the face fo the new codexes.
Another aspect of an older codex becoming "balance challenged" involves the costs of units, wargear, and vehicles. For example, my Black Templars pay 50 points for a rhino transport while Codex: Space Marines pay 35. 15 points isn't a lot, but when you start trying to run a mechanized infantry list it adds up quick. Granted, the Templars have some sweet grandfathered rules that help compensate like Init 5 Chaplains and more than one assault cannon in a Termy squad. I suppose the balance issue rears it's head dependant on what kind of list is being run.
ReplyDeleteI do know that comparing the Space Wolf codex to the Black Templars codex seems extremely unbalanced both on the page and on the table. Facing an army with 3 Runepriest HQs and two Long Fang squads splitting fire will give on pause. Luckily I managed to beat that list so further testing is required. :D