# GK Assassins



## Sephyr (Jan 18, 2010)

As has been pointed out in every threat regarding the new codex, it's likely not the definitive version. With that taken into account, what is your mind on the new assassins?

I'm a bit torn. I like the concept (though most assassins would usually strike before a battle than at a time when shrapnel and battlecannon rounds are flying) of a lone unit geared for surgical strikes. And they should be good enough to have a reasonable chance of pulling it off.

But the rules and stats I'v eseen appear...excessive. WS and BS higher than a DE Archon, with SM Strength and toughness? Maybe the Space Marine system of chapters should be cancelled and the Imperium's defense should be geared toward ass-producing these guys instead, since they shoot and chop better than, say...Marneus Calgar. And strike before the Swarmlord itself!

Every bit of their wargear is AP1, except for one which is AP 2 (and this one is poisoned 2+, so it's basically free wounds). 

Culexus units can just demolish Eldar and Tyranids. Callidus are HQ destroyers that will nke every non-EW on its first failed inv save, and have a cheap stunt in which accurately DS near a unit, causing free AP2 hits on it, ripe for firing their Neural Shredder template right afterward. Eversor are good but don't seem broken, but vindicares...wow.

They steal Telion's thunder (and also shoot better) by picking their own wound allocation. AP 1 rifle and pistols. Choice of ammo: poisoned 2+, a shot that removes invulnerable saves from targets (See you in hell, Eldrad! Should have packed a spare flak vest!), and the penetrator shot, which will glance AV _12_ on average and has a +1 on the damage chart (better than a lascannon). Or do a double would on non-vehicle units to further dissuade people from ever, ever taking Tigurius and other non-inv save HQs (though any of those won't have their storm shields or Iron Halos for that long).

There's of course the fact that they are always alone out there, making them a high target priority that can be taken out (except for the Callidus, who is arrused at least one turn of slaughter), but between stealth, fleet and other tricks, they have a decent change of escaping.


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

No Telion stole the vindicare rule. Hell before vindicare assassin could shot into close combat, hell he could even shot his own guys to.


----------



## vulcan539 (May 17, 2010)

Have you read any of the Inquisition codexs?

Also do they still got there Invariable Sv?


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

This sounds awesome.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Invulnerable 4+ as normal.

I don't get the WS/BS 8. It really pisses me off. YES you spent your whole life (30 years?) training, but hey look, over here is Asdrubal Vect. He's been fighting in combat _since the Fall of the Eldar_, but apparantly you hit him on 3+. Sense? No? Didn't think so.

I don't understand why the fuck they didn't just give each one seperate profiles apart from sheer laziness. The Vindicare is a god-awesome sniper, so give him BS8 and WS4-5. The Callidus is designed to fight 1v1 with major characters, so maybe WS7 and BS5. The Eversor just massacres boat loads of soldiers, so try WS5 BS5 but with an extra couple of attacks over the others. Nope, WS8 Space Marines it is.

The entire codex reads like IG vets on steroids to me, from what I saw of it in store today. Instead of Hydras you get Rending Heavy4 Autocannon which can be spammed, squads of BS3 Troops in Chimeras that can all shoot with their choice of Heavy Weapon (5 Lascannon from the top hatch please) and some other really silly stuff.


----------



## Karak The Unfaithful (Feb 13, 2011)

The word "overpowered" comes to mind, but how much would one of these assassins costs? in the old codex they were about 105pts (although it varied by assassin)


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

That makes no sense to me either. They have better skill with weapons in hand to hand than an effin PL! I can't wait for the Eldar codex remake when they come round to it cause they are gonna kick some serious ass. Going by current standards nothing less than WS and BS9 as well as having I8 or something else stupid.


----------



## Sephyr (Jan 18, 2010)

They cost between 130-140 points. Not cheap, but given their stats I still see it as unbalanced. 

And having asingle statline shared by all of them is lazy design indeed. The sniper assassin has better WS than freaking Kharn, who has more melee time than the average Chapter Master as spent time breathing?


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

Well at least Kharn hits on 2s on everyone, so the Assassin is hitting Kharn on 3s hes hitting back on 2s. Makes sense, but Lucious who is Swordsman Superior is shit out of luck.


----------



## unxpekted22 (Apr 7, 2009)

I call a matt ward on this one


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Doelago said:


> This sounds awesome.


If you enjoy fan wank codices.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> If you enjoy fan wank codices.


It's codex: grey knights, what were you expecting, balance?


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

No. Not balance, I had hope for a degree of intelligence though.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

We need xenos player to have their codexes written by fanboys. I want Phil Kelly to write the next Tyranid and Eldar codexes. He did a good job last time.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Stephen_Newman said:


> We need xenos player to have their codexes written by fanboys. I want Phil Kelly to write the next Tyranid and Eldar codexes. He did a good job last time.


thats the problem. Too me a "good codex" is like, current nids, or DE, a dex that is powerful, internally balanced, and fluffy. So if you get people writing "good" codices, there will still be a distinct gap between them, and the 3 Volumes of Mat Ward's pervers insanity.


----------



## TheReverend (Dec 2, 2007)

My local GW manager summed up assassins this afternoon; "assassins are broke" 

his reasoning was that there is now no limit on how many assassins you can have, other than points and the org chart. Three assassins running around the board is going to be mental...


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

The GK however do have one distinct disadvantage. They lack large amounts of long range anti tank firepower. Therefore if we hide our men inside METAL BAWKSES we live longer. until the tanks are hammered out by some pissed off terminators and a dreadknight.


----------



## VX485 (Feb 17, 2011)

A single statline for all assassins, WTF?! that is lazy it wouldt even take a day to make a different and fair statline for each assassin, looks like they are really are looking for an excuse to use BS of higher than 5 since 5th ed came in.

Is it just me or does it seem every new codex seems to boast super buff be all and end all fucking demigods for the cost of a bucket of chips? Ok some things are awesome but there needs to be a balance

rant over


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

VX485 said:


> A single statline for all assassins, WTF?! that is lazy it wouldt even take a day to make a different and fair statline for each assassin, looks like they are really are looking for an excuse to use BS of higher than 5 since 5th ed came in.
> 
> Is it just me or does it seem every new codex seems to boast super buff be all and end all fucking demigods for the cost of a bucket of chips? Ok some things are awesome but there needs to be a balance
> 
> rant over


Man, you play IG, that pretty much renders your rant invalid. DE, and Nids, were both fine, SW is powerful but not lame, Smurfs is fine BA is borderline.


----------



## VX485 (Feb 17, 2011)

well no matter who i face i always know my guardsmen are gunna be turned into pulp lol, just field more cannon fodder


----------



## Sephyr (Jan 18, 2010)

Warlock in Training said:


> Well at least Kharn hits on 2s on everyone, so the Assassin is hitting Kharn on 3s hes hitting back on 2s. Makes sense, but Lucious who is Swordsman Superior is shit out of luck.


Against a Callidus, Kharn likely won't ever get to strike. Even if he charges, Ini 7 meant he gets attacked 5 times with a power weapon at S4 before he resolves his attacks. Any failed save = Instant Death.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Sephyr said:


> Against a Callidus, Kharn likely won't ever get to strike. Even if he charges, Ini 7 meant he gets attacked 5 times with a power weapon at S4 before he resolves his attacks. Any failed save = Instant Death.


And powergamers who flock to this codex will tell you to stop crying cheese. but its ok, the rest of us won't be able to hear them over their omnipresent screeches of "im so 1337!"


----------



## Karak The Unfaithful (Feb 13, 2011)

> And powergamers who flock to this codex will tell you to stop crying cheese. but its ok, the rest of us won't be able to hear them over their omnipresent screeches of "im so 1337!"


dammit, my local GW is going to be neck-deep in GK players and all those players who bought BA and thought there was nothing that could beat them.

With all these crazy, overpowered units and codex's comeing out, this might be a warning for the future 40K


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Stephen_Newman said:


> The GK however do have one distinct disadvantage. They lack large amounts of long range anti tank firepower. Therefore if we hide our men inside METAL BAWKSES we live longer. until the tanks are hammered out by some pissed off terminators and a dreadknight.


It might not be long range, but they control the midfield rather nicely with their 24" 4-shot rending Autocannons...


----------



## VX485 (Feb 17, 2011)

Karak The Unfaithful said:


> dammit, my local GW is going to be neck-deep in GK players and all those players who bought BA and thought there was nothing that could beat them.
> 
> With all these crazy, overpowered units and codex's comeing out, this might be a warning for the future 40K


 
Pretty much what i was trying to say before from a neutral perspective


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

Good old Matt Ward.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Someone posted scans of the assassin page from the new GK codex on /tg/ today. They look scary but i don't think they are all that amazing.

Culexus Assassins get a Str 5 ap 1 Ass 2 weapon and the ability to force other units to pass leadership tests to hit him. And his weapon gives an extra attack if he targets a psyker. Meh

Callidus Assassin gets a power weapon that inflicts instant death, a gun that tests against leadership and can't hit tanks, and a nice reserve special rule for d6 hits at str 4 ap 2 when coming in (also lets you start within 3in of the damaged unit). Has hit and Run and Stealth. The boosted statline really helps here and the DS rule make this assassin seemingly useful. Might be the most useful one except you can't Assault after deep striking, even though the unit was on the ground hiding in an enemy squad.

Eversor Assassin gets a lightning claw, melta bombs, pistol that shoots hellfire rounds, furious charge, and d6 extra attacks on the charge. Meh he still needs to get to the enemy to be useful.

And finally the Vindicare Assassin

Has 2 guns that fire special bullets (hellfire, bullet that destroys Invul saves from equipment only, and a round that does 2 wounds or 4d6 armor pen) Stealth and Infiltrate, and Deadshot (you select the wounded model). Cool unit, rifle got a 36in range but it's heavy 1. So once a turn I can snipe a unit, not do instant death and only inflict maximum 2 wounds a turn or pop a tank. It's ok, not great, but ok.

I'm not impressed by these guys. They're going to be magnets for fire and not being IC's (to my knowledge anyway) they can't link up with another squad. Not overpowered by any means, unless you're doing King of Cheese's Ultimate unit game.


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

wusword77 said:


> Might be the most useful one except you can't Assault after deep striking, even though the unit was on the ground hiding in an enemy squad.


Even Assassins need to stand up and go "Ta-Dah!" when they reveal themselves, so everyone can gasp. It's the first law of dramatics :wink:

And as for the assassins not being the over-powered cheese-fest monsters the 'leaked codex' made them out to be? Not surprised, in the least. Leaked codexes tend to either be the very first play-test edition from 3 years ago that is always overpowered and quickly hacked into shape, or someone's random ideal-army wet-dream, made up and leaked as 'official'. I don't bother with them as they are never the real deal.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Wusword77 said:


> So once a turn I can snipe a unit, not do instant death and only inflict maximum 2 wounds a turn or pop a tank. It's ok, not great, but ok.


Well for, what, about 130pts you get a BS8 shot every turn that (if the weapon is not "Sniper", I can't remember from my brief look at the dex) glances AV14 on average and penetrates everything else, or if it does follow the "Sniper" rules then it's 3+4D6 and each of those 4D6 can Rend if you roll a 6. And it's AP1.

Ironically the supposedly best anti-character model in the game is actually the best anti-vehicle unit in the game. Go figure. :smoke:


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Sephyr said:


> As has been pointed out in every threat regarding the new codex, it's likely not the definitive version. With that taken into account, what is your mind on the new assassins?


What's on my mind is that "*it's likely not the definitive version*."


However, assuming they left everything exactly the same, it would seem silly that all the assassins stats would one, be as high as they are, and two be exactly the same. 


_Assassins are humans.
Astartes are humans.

Assassins train for nothing else than to kill.
Astartes train for nothing else than to kill.

Assassins are altered to be super human in ability, staying power, and skill.
Astartes are altered to be super human in ability, staying power, and skill.

Assassins are given specialized equipment to get the job done.
Astartes are given specialized equipment to get the job done.
_



Thinking about this, I agree with all those who've said there should be no way assassin's have SM stats but be WS and BS 8. To me they should be roughly equivalent to a marine. Maybe on par with a SM captain with WS6 and BS5. I also agree the stats should be different for different assassins. Maybe the Vindicare should be WS5 and BS6 for example, etc.


For me the main difference should come in their equipment. It should be their super specialized wargear that really separates them out from marines, not their stat line. I don't mind them having super crazy/cool equipment. Assassins are supposed to have crazy cool equipment. 




.


----------



## Mortigar (Oct 5, 2010)

I think it would have been better if they had a similar rule to Space Wolves Lones Wolves, but instead of kill points for dying/not dying, but for completing objectives which would be written down and kept secret before the game.

I also can't imagine an assassin hanging around a battlefield after it has acomplished its objective, maybe teleported off to a ship in orbit, or made to fall back to represent returning to an awaiting transport


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Sethis said:


> Well for, what, about 130pts you get a BS8 shot every turn that (if the weapon is not "Sniper", I can't remember from my brief look at the dex) glances AV14 on average and penetrates everything else, or if it does follow the "Sniper" rules then it's 3+4D6 and each of those 4D6 can Rend if you roll a 6. And it's AP1.
> 
> Ironically the supposedly best anti-character model in the game is actually the best anti-vehicle unit in the game. Go figure. :smoke:


The weapon doesn't follow the sniper rule, it just has ap 1 then does damage based on the bullets you use.

The unit is ok, it's not a game breaking unit that people seem to be making assassins out to be.



Mortigar said:


> I think it would have been better if they had a similar rule to Space Wolves Lones Wolves, but instead of kill points for dying/not dying, but for completing objectives which would be written down and kept secret before the game.


Unless those objectives are selected from a list within the codex, that is a game changing rule. How would it work in a competitive setting? I just make my guy headshot a CSM unit and I gain the kill points? thats just lame.


----------



## shogunboy (Jan 18, 2011)

Wusword77 said:


> The weapon doesn't follow the sniper rule, it just has ap 1 then does damage based on the bullets you use.
> 
> The unit is ok, it's not a game breaking unit that people seem to be making assassins out to be.


Really? Then how would you determine the number to wound against a model's toughness then using Shield Breaker and Turbo-penetrator special ammo? I recall seeing the weapon as a sniper, Heavy 1 weapon.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

I'm sorry there is no justification for the GK codex NOT being overpowered.

I was speaking with my local manager who is quite close to GW HQ and therefore very loyal to it and even he agrees that the codex is overpowered.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

People, please.

Assassins are about as tough as a Tactical Marine with 2 Wounds. They're single model units. They'll die to a single round of shooting from almost anything.

The Codex isn't even out yet. People are only getting to look at it. Please, _please_ play some games with/against the army before declaring overpowered WAAC cheese. For your own sake.


----------



## Maugoth (Mar 23, 2010)

:goodpost:

totally right it makes me laugh that everyone is crying about a dex that hasn't been used/playtested by any of us yet.

also didn't the old assassins have the same profile as each other before too?, i don't recall anyone moaning about that (i could be wrong)


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

There's a difference in my mind between the following:

Complaining because the army/unit is overpowered

Complaining because there seems to be no logic behind some of the rules/statlines

I rarely, if ever, complain about the first. I do however, complain on a regular basis about the second. :grin:

I don't understand how they arrived at the premise that *all* assassins are better in hand to hand than someone 10,000 years old (or indeed a Star God - yes I know it's an old 'Dex), and are *all* better at shooting than the aforementioned.

Likewise I don't understand how they arrived at the conclusion that a Space Marine with a Power Weapon and Storm Bolter with 2x CCWs ought to cost 4pts more than a bog standard marine with bolter. I just don't understand the reasoning, in the same way as I don't understand the Grey Hunters (+1CCW, Counter Attack, Acute Senses, 2x Melta guns) being 1pt cheaper than a bog standard marine.


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

I suppose the writers would argue that they attempt to balance the whole codex not individual units. For example Grey hunters can't have ranged heavy weapons which makes them less usefull in certain situations. The fact that competitive players can min/max the codex can't be the only factor.

If units were truly identical/balanced against the same FOC in every codex we might as well play chess.

IMO 40K has always been a rock/paper/scissors game which is exactly as it should be to keep it entertaining.

(And bringing fluff about stat lines into a discussion on codex power/balance can only lead to insanity IMO )


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

The Problem with having stats try to match fluff is that they have it on a 1-10 system. Which is terrible when you have things like a space marine, capable of ripping a man in two, reflected by str4, or an Ork, who is supposed to be much stronger than a man as well, with a str of 3. Limits the possibilities greatly.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> People, please.
> 
> Assassins are about as tough as a Tactical Marine with 2 Wounds. They're single model units. They'll die to a single round of shooting from almost anything.
> 
> The Codex isn't even out yet. People are only getting to look at it. Please, _please_ play some games with/against the army before declaring overpowered WAAC cheese. For your own sake.


:goodpost: Nailed it perfectly. 



the cabbage said:


> (And bringing fluff about stat lines into a discussion on codex power/balance can only lead to insanity IMO )


But Fluff is the basis of everything. It is the template by which the rules are envisaged. So it is only natural that Fluff comes into it. That`s why necrons are begging for an update; with the shift in the general feel of 40k over the past few editions, units that were once uber (c`tan for example) are now soft units able to be killed in a single shooting phase by one squad.

Now, in an effort to stop the tears (or the whining at least) I shall attempt to use fluff to rationalise assassins: 

Universal statline: Simple. Their basic bodysuit is the same, meaning they all wear a skintight suit that nulls pain to a minor degree. They are all trained to be incredibly agile. Those who have read _Nemesis_ may understand that even the Vindicare must be capable of surviving in unexpected circumstances. Taking up position to snipe an ork warboss then being discovered by a wayward band of orks? Use your imagination!

WS so high? Granted, SM are trained to fight their whole lives, so why would Assassins be better? Because their training is different. It is intended to achieve a different purpose to that of a SM. 

A marine is intended to fight alongside a unit, their training is meant to compliment the unit as a whole. An assassin is almost always alone, he is meant to be able to take on superior numbers. Rather than design some ridiculous and pointless rule, GW has decided to reflect this with a high WS. So what? 

Higher stats than special characters? Yeah, sure. Put one of them in CC with a c`tan or Abaddon and see who comes out of it better.  So what if the Phoenix Lords have one less WS, they`re faster and every single one of them is EW and fights with four attacks of their own, minimum.


I seriously doubt assassins will be common anyway. I mean, look at the other elite entries. They`re fucking much better! I`d rather be facing a couple of assassins than a dreadnought, especially considering the nega psychic bubble they project.


----------



## Cocakoala (Apr 27, 2009)

Here's a question, how would the 4d6 to penetrate round work against a wave serpents energy field?


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

As it`s written? If it works it works, if not then not.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Cocakoala said:


> Here's a question, how would the 4d6 to penetrate round work against a wave serpents energy field?


Basically, it'd roll 4D6 for armor penetration, but a roll of 6 wouldn't cause Rending, since the energy field stops it. So Wave Serpents are very much in a bad spot if they get hit by one of those.


----------



## Sephyr (Jan 18, 2010)

Serpion5 said:


> WS so high? Granted, SM are trained to fight their whole lives, so why would Assassins be better? Because their training is different. It is intended to achieve a different purpose to that of a SM.
> 
> A marine is intended to fight alongside a unit, their training is meant to compliment the unit as a whole. An assassin is almost always alone, he is meant to be able to take on superior numbers. Rather than design some ridiculous and pointless rule, GW has decided to reflect this with a high WS. So what?
> 
> Higher stats than special characters? Yeah, sure. Put one of them in CC with a c`tan or Abaddon and see who comes out of it better.  So what if the Phoenix Lords have one less WS, they`re faster and every single one of them is EW and fights with four attacks of their own, minimum.



Some decent points, but other don't hold much water.

- There's a difference between "high WS" and *highest for any elite slot in any army*, as well as highest than 9/10ths of all HQs. Had their BS been 6 (Tobias Telion equivalent), you wouldn't hear a peep from me. No one would look at it and go "Pfff, just BS 6? this guy is obviously a specialist of any sort!" The best-trained tample assassin equals the pinnacle of enhanced human sniping. Powerful and still decently fluffy. BS8 is a shot at BS 6 followed by another try at BS 3 should you get a one in the first roll. It shouldn't be given to Eversor lunatics who are, by their own fluff, slobbering berserkering chargers. 

Point: you can make them good without throwing the whole (arguably inexistent :wacko statline logic of the game to the wind. 

- As for the CC example, I notice you only picked Eternal Warriors. Going just a bit lower for HQs and special characters you might see in games of 2000 points and under, few characters would even get to strike against Callidus or Eversor. Only Lelith Hesperax and the Succubus would ever strike first (and thanks to FC, a charging Eversor would tie the Succubus). Only the Swarmlord, Mephiston and a few other uber-priced stragglers match the common Ini of 7. 

The Eversor will on average do 3.5 wounds on any T4 opponent of WS of 7 an below. The Callidus will usually cause about a wound and some change, and then insta-kill any non-EW.

Again, I'm trying to not whine too much bu understand the reason for the mechanics. As I see it, they wanted to charge you the cost of a cheap HQ to give you a reasonable shot at wiping out a pricier enemy HQ or heavy hitter. You still have to get most across the table, though given Fleet, Stealth and some decent cover from vehicles, it's not really that hard; a single model is easy to conceal.

However, both the Sniper and the Callidus are almost 100% effective from the moment they step on the board, with little you can do to defend. You can't even conceal your nobs and sargeant from a penetrator round by tuckig them behind vehicles; said vehicle will take a 4d6 pen round with a +1 on the samage table and likely not be there, or be immobile, this round and your model is gone the next, unless you actively do round-about path or hang back. Oops, rolled poorly on difficult terrain trying to get cover and stayed exposed? Dead. That's a lot of harrassment for the cost on an elites slot. 

Again, I don't mean to blow it out of proportion. The intnded tone here is not "GW betrayed me yet again! Nobody screwed me so leisurely since my old bosses at Enron!", but "Hmm, this is getting a bit wonky. Shouldn't they take the guys who made the DE and SW codici and try to model the rules philosophy along those lines?"


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

shogunboy said:


> Really? Then how would you determine the number to wound against a model's toughness then using Shield Breaker and Turbo-penetrator special ammo? I recall seeing the weapon as a sniper, Heavy 1 weapon.


You're right, I missed it, as my scan is a little blurry. The rifle does have the sniper rule.


----------



## jams (Sep 19, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> Basically, it'd roll 4D6 for armor penetration, but a roll of 6 wouldn't cause Rending, since the energy field stops it. So Wave Serpents are very much in a bad spot if they get hit by one of those.


You never roll more than one d6 for armour pen on a serpent unless it's on the rear armour so that 4d6 malarky is a moot point


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

jams said:


> You never roll more than one d6 for armour pen on a serpent unless it's on the rear armour so that 4d6 malarky is a moot point


Yeah, my bad, I realized afterward that I was thinking of Living Metal.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

So it is in fact 3+4D6, because the rule says "rolls 4D6 for penetration" and says nothing about invalidating the S value of "Sniper" type weapons, and each of the 4D6 Rends. If there is a better anti-tank gun in the game, I haven't seen it yet.

Like Sephyr said, I'm not complaining about the power level, I'm just really confused and a little annoyed at how the statlines and rules comprehensively do not represent the character or fluff of the model. I'm just as confused and pissed off about why the Callidus can't assault the unit she just popped out from instead of this D6 hits stupidity.


----------



## Mushkilla (Nov 26, 2009)

To be honest the vindicare assassin no longer ignores cover. You have to set him up more riskily if you want to be in a possession to ensure your enemies don't get cover saves on their first turn. Before he never made his points back and often came down to luck.

They have removed the luck factor by making him BS8 this almost guarantees a hit. The unlimited ammo is also nice. Also most vehicles now have some form of cover save/ invulnerable. 

As for the other assassins not all of them have stealth, the evesor is poweful but needs to get to the enemy as he no longer has infiltrate. And the callidus is a one trick pony. The culluxes however is hilarious +2 shots for eveyr psycher within 12" lol in an army of psychers, 10 grey knights within 12" lol 22 S5 ap2 shots at BS8. lol


----------



## Mushkilla (Nov 26, 2009)

double post.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Thought I would chip in with a new perspective on this matter.

Has anyone noticed that in general the codexes have become more effective over time? With the oldest codex's looking more and more like crap both in terms of build, and power. Well that because the coexe's are getting closer to a new edition, and also the gradual build up of power generates a drive for people to buy new units for old armies, or move to new armies all together.

If all the books where constantly kept at the same level of power, and any relevant changes only appeared in new rule addition what drive would their be to buy anything new...ever (I sure as hell wouldn't bother buying a new model when my current list was perfected). So GW as a company keeps the hobby dynamic by shitting in everyone coffee here and again to stop the hobby from going stale. If they didn't then 40k would go the way of the specialist games, and I don't know about you but I will tolerate BA/DE and any new codex for that matter if it keeps the hobby going.


----------



## VX485 (Feb 17, 2011)

LukeValantine said:


> Thought I would chip in with a new perspective on this matter.
> 
> Has anyone noticed that in general the codexes have become more effective over time? With the oldest codex's looking more and more like crap both in terms of build, and power. Well that because the coexe's are getting closer to a new edition, and also the gradual build up of power generates a drive for people to buy new units for old armies, or move to new armies all together.
> 
> If all the books where constantly kept at the same level of power, and any relevant changes only appeared in new rule addition what drive would their be to buy anything new...ever (I sure as hell wouldn't bother buying a new model when my current list was perfected). So GW as a company keeps the hobby dynamic by shitting in everyone coffee here and again to stop the hobby from going stale. If they didn't then 40k would go the way of the specialist games, and I don't know about you but I will tolerate BA/DE and any new codex for that matter if it keeps the hobby going.


Quite a good point, apart from new models they need something else to grab an existing players or new players attention, something more 'practical' than just a new look.

Now iv had a small lookthrough the GK codex and read some other GK related threads and iv come to expect this from GK's, they are few but powerfull so it fits in game wise, ok you might face an uber assassin but your not likely to ever face more than 2 in a 1000pt game, at least i would hope so


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

Well by that reasoning then by 8th edition every unit will have 10s across the board. They can jack this crap only so far before the rules and game has to change COMPLETLY or every army will be like the last in stats.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Sephyr said:


> - As for the CC example, I notice you only picked Eternal Warriors. Going just a bit lower for HQs and special characters you might see in games of 2000 points and under, few characters would even get to strike against Callidus or Eversor. Only Lelith Hesperax and the Succubus would ever strike first (and thanks to FC, a charging Eversor would tie the Succubus). Only the Swarmlord, Mephiston and a few other uber-priced stragglers match the common Ini of 7.
> 
> The Eversor will on average do 3.5 wounds on any T4 opponent of WS of 7 an below. The Callidus will usually cause about a wound and some change, and then insta-kill any non-EW.
> 
> ...


As I see it, the buffs on a unit will mean little regardless. So what if the Eversor is BS8. Do you really think he`s gonna be doing much shooting? 

And on the vindicare and Callidus, yeah they`re good from the start. But they`ve also lost abilities. The Vindicare can no longer shoot into CC or negate cover. The callidus no longer ignores invulnerable saves. And as I said, each is only a single model. Overall, I honestly see no problem. 

And so what if they`re uber cool at killing leaders? That`s kind of the point isn`t it? The ones I mentioned are the ones they`re not likely to be able to overcome, even with their training and skills. 

And ideally, yeah they`d have the same guy write all the rules. Personally, I`d choose Robin Cruddace. Nids and IG are two of the best armies in 5E imo. They both have awesome shit, but neither are unbeatable in any sense. 



Sethis said:


> Like Sephyr said, I'm not complaining about the power level, I'm just really confused and a little annoyed at how the statlines and rules comprehensively do not represent the character or fluff of the model. I'm just as confused and pissed off about why the Callidus can't assault the unit she just popped out from instead of this D6 hits stupidity.


Maybe she needs to catch her breath? :laugh: 

What`s wrong with it dude? On a good roll this could mean a dead devastator squad or obliterator unit. It`s still got plenty of uses. 



Warlock in Training said:


> Well by that reasoning then by 8th edition every unit will have 10s across the board. They can jack this crap only so far before the rules and game has to change COMPLETLY or every army will be like the last in stats.


Think so? `Cos I`m seeing the nerf bat swung as much as the buff injections. No codex yet has been unbeatable.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Again, because some people still aren't getting it, I'm *not* talking about power levels.

The Vindicare is supposed to be the premier anti-character assassin, but with these rules if I ever took him he'd spend 6 turns de-meching the enemy instead.

The Callidus is supposed to be a member of an elite squad/retinue that suddenly lashes out in melee and starts cutting the elites of the enemy apart with her Phase Sword, not jumping out and flaming them with her back-up weapon.

I also have issues with the way they seem to be messing with the points system. If a Space Marine with Power armour and Power Weapon and Storm Bolter is worth 36pts in the Marine codex, then you'd better damn well make it cost the same in the Grey Knight codex. If that makes them prohibitively expensive then make them lose something else to justify lowering the points, so Vanilla Marines can say "Yes, they're cheaper man for man, but we get XYZ so we don't feel completely ripped off". When I say "XYZ" I don't mean different or unique units in the army book, I mean access to beneficial equipment or rules. So they got it half right when they said "Grey Knight squads can't have Melta" but then ruined it by saying "So we're gonna give them some other awesome guns instead". Like SW before it, it just makes the SM players look at their 'dex and think "Why did I bother?"


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Sethis said:


> Again, because some people still aren't getting it, I'm *not* talking about power levels.
> 
> The Vindicare is supposed to be the premier anti-character assassin, but with these rules if I ever took him he'd spend 6 turns de-meching the enemy instead.
> 
> ...


What you`re saying is an unfortunate result of a limited game system. 

Again, think of the fluff context. When would an assassin ever appear on a battlefield anyway? They usually work undercover and alone.

Well, since he has, he`ll need to contribute won`t he? If that means he`s popping tanks to help his allies out, then why not? 

And GK are a specialised chapter so naturally their wargear would reflect that. 

I`m sorry, but I cannot see any basis for a worthwhile gripe with this book. To me it seems just fine ruleswise.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Sethis said:


> I also have issues with the way they seem to be messing with the points system. If a Space Marine with Power armour and Power Weapon and Storm Bolter is worth 36pts in the Marine codex, then you'd better damn well make it cost the same in the Grey Knight codex.


No see, this is something that a lot of people don't understand.

In the Grey Knight army, a model with power armor, a storm bolter and force weapon isn't _worth_ 36 points because wargear like that is a dime a dozen, so it isn't a huge step up in effectiveness over the other models in the army. Models are assigned a points cost based on how much they're worth in the _Codex they belong to_, not how much they're worth in the game as a whole. This was explained many years ago in an issue of White Dwarf where the writer talked about how (at the time) Striking Scorpions really weren't that great for their points in the Eldar army, but if Tau could take them they'd be an amazing deal and would cost a lot more to balance it out.

There are other factors to consider as well. For example, a Wolf Guard with a combi-melta and power fist is priced under the assumption that in all likelihood he'll end up joining a Grey Hunter unit, providing the squad with additional anti-tank firepower, enhanced abilities in close combat and higher Leadership. Now if instead the Wolf Guard entry worked where it wasn't possible to attach models to other units and where every model came standard with a combi-melta and power fist, the unit would be cheaper on a model-by-model basis to account for the fact that this is standard issue wargear for the unit as well as to make up for the lack of flexibility in other areas and so on.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> Models are assigned a points cost based on how much they're worth in the _Codex they belong to_, not how much they're worth in the game as a whole. This was explained many years ago in an issue of White Dwarf where the writer talked about how (at the time) Striking Scorpions really weren't that great for their points in the Eldar army, but if Tau could take them they'd be an amazing deal and would cost a lot more to balance it out.


This would be a valid explanation if each codex was actually internally balanced. But they're not. In every codex there are some units that are costed well, and taken in every army, but also in every codex there are some units that are so badly pointed you would never take them, ever.

To demonstrate from a newer codex than the Eldar one, take Nids. People take Tervigons, Tyrants, Hive Guard, Gants, Zoanthropes, Trygons in almost every army. There are units such as Warriors, Gaunts, Gargoyles and Tyrannofexes that people take sometimes. And then there are units that are so mind crushingly bad people will never take them, ever. Pyrovores, Old One Eye, Flying Ripper Swarms and so on.

Now if the codex was internally balanced, these latter units would not exist - they'd be part of the "taken sometimes" catagory. These units have always existed, and simply prove that either the codicies aren't tested enough, or they have just been put in for fun or fluff reasons, because no-one in their right mind would argue that they are as efficient as a better unit.

All of that says to me that if GW are trying to balance unit's points values against other units in the codex, they are failing, and they have been failing since 2nd Edition. Make of that what you will.

To illustrate why this annoys me so much, I'll use the SW codex.

Grey Hunters do not have heavy weapons. For some reason or other, they are cheaper than tactical marines, despite the fact that the loss of a heavy weapon that almost never shoots is outweighed rather heavily by the additional combat weapon, counter-attack and 2x specials. They perform every job that tactical squads perform, better. Except for shooting from more than 24" away. To compensate for this lack of heavy weapons, they got given Long Fangs, which are cheaper, better Devastators.

So yes, in Codex: Space Wolves, you address the weaknesses of one unit by taking another, and maybe if every player was a space wolf player, that would be enough, because they're internally balanced. However you now have a Space Marine player looking over and thinking "They have cheaper tacticals and devastators than me, and both units are better at their jobs than either of my choices". Why then, should anyone bother to play with Tactical or Devastator marines at all? If something is better at a job than something else, it should cost more, and that's all there is to it. That's the definition of a universal cost system like points - you should get what you pay for, because if you make unit A better than unit B but make unit A cost less, all you do is make unit B unplayable, or at the very least substandard.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Sethis said:


> Why then, should anyone bother to play with Tactical or Devastator marines at all? If something is better at a job than something else, it should cost more, and that's all there is to it. That's the definition of a universal cost system like points - you should get what you pay for, because if you make unit A better than unit B but make unit A cost less, all you do is make unit B unplayable, or at the very least substandard.


Because you need to look at the army as a whole, not at things on a unit-by-unit basis.

One on one, Grey Hunters will beat up Tactical Marines more often than not. But Grey Hunters don't get combat squads and they don't get combat tactics. They don't get missile launchers or multi-meltas. They don't even get Veteran Sergeants without burning an Elite slot and spending more points on wargear and then losing the ability to take a second special weapon (bar taking a combi-weapon, which uses more points and fires once).

In a vanilla Marine army, Tacticals are worth 16 points each. In a Space Wolves army, Grey Hunters are worth 15 points each. If vanilla Marines could take Grey Hunters, Grey Hunters would probably be 16 or even 17 points each and thus suddenly not such a seemingly amazing bargain.

I'm not saying that the Codecies are perfectly balanced either internally or externally (especially externally). I'm just trying to explain the design philosophy. Frankly, if you're expecting perfect balance in books you're playing the wrong game anyway, so...


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Perfect balance = dead hobby. So GW tweeks things from time to time to keep things...interesting. Besides I like the more dynamic direction they are going with, stuff dies faster that way.


----------



## Sephyr (Jan 18, 2010)

LukeValantine said:


> Perfect balance = dead hobby.


Hence why no one plays chess, checkers and hungry hungry hippos! :laugh:

Then again, the white pieces -do- always steal initiative. Hmm. The plot thickens.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

LukeValantine said:


> Perfect balance = dead hobby.


I disagree. 

A perfect balance in a gaming system like this wouldn't represent an expression of entropy, it would represent equal competition. While it might be more advantageous from a business perspective to have a rolling system by which codices are temporarily the most powerful to generate additional sales, it doesn't make for the most enjoyable game. 

Armies that are (for the sake of argument) internally and externally balanced make the key part of the game, the actual _Game_. Now it wouldn't invalidate the art of army list writing. But it would mean that 2 players with approximately equal lists (and such a thing could exist in this scenario) would compete based on their tactical acumen, the play styles of their list, and the play style of their codex. The challenge of playing would become less about the meta-game and more about the live game on the table top. And I think that's appealing.

I also highly suspect that there would be far more variation across lists of all factions if each codex didn't have dead weight. I think ultimately its a matter of cost vs. usefulness. As an example- *Chaos Spawn* in the CSM codex are wildly useless at 1-3 per unit and 40 points each. If the unit size doubled(or more) and the cost was halved, then suddenly they become a more attractive unit - maybe only as a meat-shield, but at least people might use them.

Granted, I don't think we would totally get away from some of the Rock/Paper/Scissors aspects of 5th edition, but I think there would be fewer (or less extreme) instances of it.

Cheers,
Kreuger


----------



## DestroyerHive (Dec 22, 2009)

I agree Assassins are cheese, but they will go down by massed firepower. It would be sweet to do an Apocalypse battle, fielding as many Assassins as your opponent fields Ork Boyz...


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

By dead hobby I mean from GW's perspective. Just ask yourself if the game was balanced perfectly what motivation would there to get a new army, once you found a effective list that matched your interest/ play style? Just ask your self what was the driving force behind all those players that switched to BA, DE from their own army of preference. 

Change = sales, sales equal more models, and higher company support of the game. 40k is one of the most expansive, and convoluted examples of miniature wargaming hobby. Do you really thing a few new people coming in, or one or two bored old gits switching armies would counteract all the money lost by not forcing shifts in the gamer dynamics? 

Also remember perfect balance across the game is virtually impossible in a dynamic system in that you need all the variables present to decide on how to cross balance all elements. Hence if they did make a ernest attempt to balance the game they would have to update all armies at once. Which by this point is almost completely impossible unless they dumb things down to a level a 6 year old could master (Imagine 40k risk). 

So bitching aside 40k is the way it is for a reason, and in all honesty I am impressed it came about in the first place let alone grew so expnentialy.


----------



## Sephyr (Jan 18, 2010)

LukeValantine said:


> By dead hobby I mean from GW's perspective. Just ask yourself if the game was balanced perfectly what motivation would there to get a new army, once you found a effective list that matched your interest/ play style? Just ask your self what was the driving force behind all those players that switched to BA, DE from their own army of preference.


Because you want to try/paint something different? I am fully aware I'll likely lose more with the DE army I'm starting than my current CSM list, especially at first. But I want to try some fast&fragile play in addition to my heavy-infantry steamroll precisely to keep it fresh and have options.

Just going "Hey guys, you know that codex you like so much? Now it -blows-! Buys these news units that do better at half the point cost but the full dollar price!" every 4 years (which is not what I think GW does, mind you! Well, maybe if you play Daemons  ) is a pretty unstable model.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

I assumed GW would continue producing new models and codices, updating and revising rules, changing the fluff. I'm not sure how much GW forecasts its profits based on players jumping to a new army. I think that's totally reasonable when the impetus is "new and shiney", when they're trying to promote a competitive gaming culture its either brilliant or asinine. 

I think they could do a better job of balancing their codices. If there were for instance and algorithm or concrete system they used behind the scenes to evaluate and asses a troop's potential effectiveness. (I've seen amazing armies piloted into proverbial mountain sides and mediocre ones stomp competent people) Some sort of system of measures or metrics would certainly help to ensure that as newer codices are released they fit reasonably within the constellation of existing armies.

The release of a new codex, game edition, expansion, or a revamped miniature line will always be cause for added gamer investment. GW make great miniatures and have a strong background. I don't buy nearly as much as I used to, costs have gone up and my relatively disposable income has gone down, but I do still buy and paint - though its sadly been ages since I got a game in. The strength of the hobby (read: background, miniatures, and the potential to play) as a whole keeps my involved (now for about 20 years).

I'd really like to know what percentage of a given release represents people switching to a new army because its the current big dog that players can't beat.

As a counter example, my fantasy army hasn't changed much in 3 editions of fantasy (my 40k has changed a bunch). But when I can afford it I add to it, and build out the army. Though I have no idea if its any good in 8th ed. And whenever GW releases a new set of chaos marines or warriors I always try to pick up a box. I don't rebuild the whole army, but I really enjoy having a veritable evolutionary time line of miniatures. 

Cheers,
Kreuger


----------



## Caliban (Nov 27, 2010)

Sephyr said:


> Because you want to try/paint something different? I am fully aware I'll likely lose more with the DE army I'm starting than my current CSM list, especially at first. But I want to try some fast&fragile play in addition to my heavy-infantry steamroll precisely to keep it fresh and have options.
> 
> Just going "Hey guys, you know that codex you like so much? Now it -blows-! Buys these news units that do better at half the point cost but the full dollar price!" every 4 years (which is not what I think GW does, mind you! Well, maybe if you play Daemons  ) is a pretty unstable model.


 
But you've just proved his point! Dark Eldar aren't a new army, they've been around for years. they were always fast and fragile too. however nobody played them. new codex comes out, suddenly they become super killy and you start collecting. i bet near all if not all are brand new models too


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Kreuger said:


> A perfect balance in a gaming system like this wouldn't represent an expression of entropy, it would represent equal competition.


The problem is you can't actually have a perfect balance in the current rule set. Lets say every army was built along a universal point system. A guardsman would be worth less points then a space marine but if it's much less it allows you to take much more guardsmen then an equally pointed SM squad. Having more IG shooting at SM causes them to make more armor checks which means more chances of failing.

The you have the problem that HQ units are built to be single models as opposed to squads. If built on the same point system they would become hyper point efficient when measured up against a regular squad. Putting in a scaling point system could fix that problem but that would cause more elite units (such as Space Marine and CSM) to be less point efficient, while making units with lower stats, like IG, much more point efficient.

It's because of this that GW does not use one standard point builder to make their armies.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> Because you need to look at the army as a whole, not at things on a unit-by-unit basis.


Well I was kinda looking across the whole army with the SW example, but I can hardly write a cross-codex examination for this topic without wildly diverting the thread.



Katie Drake said:


> One on one, Grey Hunters will beat up Tactical Marines more often than not. But Grey Hunters don't get combat squads and they don't get combat tactics. They don't get missile launchers or multi-meltas. They don't even get Veteran Sergeants without burning an Elite slot and spending more points on wargear and then losing the ability to take a second special weapon (bar taking a combi-weapon, which uses more points and fires once).


An equal points value of Grey Hunters will always (assuming equal luck of course) beat an equal points value of Tactical Marines. Bearing in mind that both units perform exactly the same function game-wise, I don't understand how GH could possibly be cheaper.

No, they don't get combat squads, but frankly a lot of the time I personally don't rate combat squadding anyway. Too many people just assume you should do it on objective games without actually examining what you lose. Combat tactics I see used maybe 1 game in 10. Other units more than provide equivalent Heavy Weapons. The only loss on the Sergeant is the lack of a Power Fist, and if you chose to take a Wolf Guard, yeah you lose the second melta, but a combi-weapon + Fist WG is cheaper than a Tactical Sergeant with the same equipment.



Katie Drake said:


> In a vanilla Marine army, Tacticals are worth 16 points each. In a Space Wolves army, Grey Hunters are worth 15 points each.


Why? I still don't see a convincing reason that says "Grey Hunters are inherently less valuable to SW than Tactical Marines are to Vanilla SM". If you asked any Marine player if he'd like to have Grey Hunters instead of Tacticals (even at a 2pt increase), but leave the rest of the army the same, I don't know anyone who wouldn't say "Fuck yes" and start gluing chainswords to the bastards. The same can be said of Rune Priests, Scouts, Long Fangs and TWC (yes I know they don't have a Vanilla equivalent and that Scouts eat an Elites slot, I'm just giving examples).

A great example of what I mean is the BA vehicles. They are the same as Marine vehicles, with the addition of the "Fast" rule. The addition of this rule increases their cost by 10-30pts depending on how beneficial this rule is to the vehicle in question (i.e. Fast Vindicators are better than Fast Rhinos, so cost more). That is a perfect example of two units that do the same job, being costed in relation to each other despite being in different codicies. It's also why Meltaguns et al tend to stay at a fairly set value of 10pts - that is how much the gun is worth, irrespective of whether you're IG Vets or Sternguard or Chaos Terminators.

Anyway, without turning this into a rant about SWs (I'm just using them as an example because I haven't sat down with the GK codex the same way) I'm just trying to say that it would make a lot more sense to make something's points cost represent its absolute value rather than trying to gauge its relative value, which seems to create units like the Pyrovore (Nids don't have any Heavy Flamers, so when we do give one to them it's got to cost 45pts each) but at the other end of the spectrum creates units like Long Fangs (when was the last time you saw a SW player without at least 1 squad?).

I'm willing to bet that if Long Fangs cost more than Devastators because of their additional special rules, they'd be right on the list of "taken sometimes" rather than "you're insane not to take them". Of course this is assuming that Devastators were costed fairly in the first place, and we can probably agree that they weren't... Might not be the best example but I hope you can see what I mean. Units that fill identical roles, have identical statlines and fit in the same FOC slot should not cost less than other units when they have unconditionally better equipment and abilities.


----------



## Sephyr (Jan 18, 2010)

Caliban said:


> But you've just proved his point! Dark Eldar aren't a new army, they've been around for years. they were always fast and fragile too. however nobody played them. new codex comes out, suddenly they become super killy and you start collecting. i bet near all if not all are brand new models too


Super killy? No. They have been brought up to 5th edition, given good, plastic model lines. But I don't see my friend who got tired of losing with pre-update GK and then builr a razorspam BA list to win forever (almost) changing his plans and getting DE. also, it took 13 years for them to get to the bottom of their plight, not 4. :ireful2:

And granted, I was interested in DE before the 5th edition codex. But the ugly old models, metal incubi and wyches and sheer age of the rules kept me away. 

But, emm, I have been snatching some old raiders on eBay. Not as sleek and the new models, but the price is right. So nope, not all new models. :wink:


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Still he proves the point. Just look at how many people where talking about/playing DE BA before the new codexe's.....that's right besides some vets virtually no one was getting into old armies. Seriously if you have been in the hobby for more then 2 years you really don't need exact percentages to view a trend. Remember old farts with 4-5 armies really aren't the a big part of sales, its about a 6 to 1 (from what I have seen at 2-3 different hobby centers across Canada) ratio of new players that want the cool new army that make up the majority. Seriously why is it even worth mentioning? Every vet is well aware of how GW policies favor new gamers over old. 

Furthermore wusward has a perfect point. If the game was perfectly balanced at least points wise much of the interesting rock paper scissors aspect of the hobby would vanish, and at that point you may as well play any random as army (Only really difference would be in how things look.)

Seriously have you thought at length about how to perfectly balance armies without leaving room for abuse, or out and out making every army so bland it makes you vomit? Not very easy is it. Don't get me wrong GW could do better balancing armies, but I feel they do a relatively ok job when you take into account their business model.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

LukeValantine said:


> If the game was perfectly balanced at least points wise much of the interesting rock paper scissors aspect of the hobby would vanish, and at that point you may as well play any random as army (Only really difference would be in how things look.)


I disagree. Look at Starcraft as an example. Three perfectly balanced armies to choose from, yet some people swear by only one faction, while others play all three equally. Each of the three looks different and more importantly _plays differently_. That last bit is the most important for me, personally. A game like Chess is almost perfectly balanced (obviously someone has to go first) but both sides are identical - this bores me because I like having a "style" when I play a game. Obviously you can use different strategies, but there's nothing special about being white or black. If we segue back to Warhammer, we can see that several of the codicies are equally powerful, but still play completely differently. Eldar vs Marines is a good example of a game between two balanced armies that could go either way, but I'll always prefer the way the Eldar play over how the Marines play.

Leaving out the problem of mono-builds and limited archetypes for the time being, this seems to indicate that GW is capable of producing _relatively_ balanced codicies. Not only that, but the armies look completely different, feel completely different, and play completely different from each other. That is a perfect example of the ideal state of the hobby (in my mind) - where you have an equal chance to win with every army against someone of equal skill and with equal luck. Having seen that GW is capable of producing balanced rules, we just need an explanation as to why sometimes they do not do so, and the answers would probably be different with every person you ask:

- They want the new shinies to sell more, so they make them better
- They have fanboys writing the codicies
- They don't playtest enough
- They're fucking morons who don't know their arse from their elbow, and consequently have real problems trying to take a dump
...

The list goes on. Whatever your particular idea is doesn't really matter, because you've accepted the reality that not all armies are equally good - and at the point where you reach that decision, you have agreed with me that this is a sub-ideal state of affairs for the game.

This wouldn't even bother me as much as it does (and I'm swinging back to my original point here), if the powerful armies weren't made of units that are used contrary to the fluff. Example:

In every book, codex, sourcebook, rulebook, painting, sketch and fan fic the Imperial Guard are represented as a teeming mass of men of dubious quality. Commanders throw millions of Guardsmen away every day for no better reason than diversionary tactics, or because they have to be seen to be putting some effort in. These waves of infantry are supported mainly by Leman Russ Battle Tanks of whatever varient, with backing fire from Artillery, some Air Cover from Lightnings and the occasional odd unit like Hellhounds, Sentinels, Ogryns, whatever. Obviously, some companies fight in a very unusual manner - Gaunts Ghosts are completely unmechanised, Steel Legion is nothing but mechanised, Elysians are very air-based etc. That's the fluff. Now look at the way they get played on the table. X veteran squads - which in the codex are themselves written as being very rare, X Vendettas/Valks, generally no platoons, no "special" units like Ogryns, Rough Riders, Ratlings, Sentinels, often no Leman Russ, and one or two artillery pieces.

Can we agree that this style of army does not represent how the Imperial Guard forces _in general_ should be built according to the fluff? Yes, I'm sure there are mechanised companies of Vets out there somewhere who have a strong Vendetta presence and really really like their melta guns - _but they are not the norm_. Looking at a lot of the prototype GK lists going up across the internet, they have the same problem - the lists are not fitting the fluff. Ignoring power level, THIS is what annoys me about Vet spam, Long Fang Spam, 9 Hive Guard armies, and the rest. The best recent codex in my mind would be BA, partly because they fixed a lot of the broken points costs (TH/SS Termies, Devastators and some others) and because some of their competitive lists follow the fluff very well.

GW can produce good, balanced, fluffly codicies when they try. It would be nice if they tried harder from time to time. :grin:


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Sethis said:


> I disagree. Look at Starcraft as an example. Three perfectly balanced armies to choose from, yet some people swear by only one faction, while others play all three equally. Each of the three looks different and more importantly _plays differently_. That last bit is the most important for me, personally.


Starcraft isn't the best example of making a balanced game, as star craft 1 took 1 expansion and several years worth of patching to balance the game to where it is now and it still does not balance out certain units. Massing Carriers still has no real answer unless you build your army to specifically destroy them. Zealots are still worth more then their cost, as they are much better then standard marines or zerglings.

Even Starcraft 2 isn't close to perfectly balanced as units are built off the ideas of Hard and soft counters to other units. If we had 40k working like that it would suck.

I agree with your other points though, that GW is able to produce balanced codices but your bringing up of the IG codex raises an interesting point, along with your point about BA being a much better codex then IG for being truer to the fluff.

Matt Ward wrote the BA dex.
Matt Ward did not write the IG dex.

Mind = Blown.


----------

