How is 40k 7th edition "less competitive" than 40k 5th edition

[confoo22]

As far as I can see, what needs to happen is GW really needs to sit down and overhaul the very basic mechanics of 40k and WH in the light of the 30-odd years that have progressed since they started using them. Even if they stick to the humble D6, adding aspects like alternate unit activation would really shake things up, and mitigate some of the known issues with 40k (eg. first turn annihilation by tau/Imp Guard fire support lists).

The problem with that idea is that it's easier said than done. A complete overhaul of all the rules and mechanics from the group up would most likely require a complete overhaul of all the codexes at the same time. Such a venture would alienate a large chunk of the player base while simultaneously costing a huge amount in both resources and manpower. Although, if rumors are to be believed, we'll find out exactly how well that's going to work out when WHFB launches 9th, which is expected to be a complete overhaul and major trimming of the factions.

Wrong. And I guess you know that because you are comparing different units witch different niches.
The question is not "do wyches fill a different niche than Warriors" the question is "why on earth should I ever upgrade them to bloodbrides"?
Also Wyches (troops) and Hellions (Fast attack) do not interfere.
Hellions and Reavers do. And thats an easy win for the Reavers in every single category. More movement, more T, more attacks, better save, more options, more special rules.

Well are you talking niche or are you talking Force org? CC is a niche role, Fast Attack is a general category. Jet bikes don't really compare to infantry, and on top of that you're paying more for them. I would expect a unit that I'm paying more for to be better than a unit that I'm paying less for, which is kind of what balance is.

[Charon]

As i said before I compare units that occupy the same force org AND the same niche.
And yes, jetbikes do not compare well to jump infantry cause the jetbike is BETTER. That 3 points more is hardly balanced when it bring so much advantages.
And thats why hellions sit on the shelf. Because they are a terrible unit with terrible internal "balance".

[CoffeeGrunt]

Using WMH as an example, apparently it differs from 40K in two very fundamental ways:

1) Anything can damage anything, given a Boost and some decent rolling. Granted, a bow from an Everblight Bowman might only graze the Mountain King, but it's not like Lasguns to a Heirophant which simply do nothing,
2) A powerful enough weapon is guaranteed to damage a weak enough model.

As far as one, it's a means to make sure you never get the, "oh hello Armoured Company list, I forget the AT weapons," dilemma that can end a game before it begins.However, WMH lacks this simply because it lacks any sort of vehicle system or integration at all, (a personal sticking point with it.) WMH's damage allocation system is more straightforward than 40K's, but suffers the alternate problem of being tedious when rolling for a large unit at once, nevermind the likes of Conscripts under FRF, SRF. One player suggested having units be able to half their shots to double their strength, but then I would personally take nothing but Guardsmen and enjoy Wounding Space Marines on 2s and Glancing light vehicles to death. Clearly, that one won't work.

The second one is just a factor of the Wounding system in 40K. They suggested making anything that is Strength double their Toughness reroll to Wound, but that on top of Instant Death would be insane IMO. Lascannons sometimes roll 1s, most of us can get over that IMO.

[confoo22]

As i said before I compare units that occupy the same force org AND the same niche.
And yes, jetbikes do not compare well to jump infantry cause the jetbike is BETTER. That 3 points more is hardly balanced when it bring so much advantages.
And thats why hellions sit on the shelf. Because they are a terrible unit with terrible internal "balance".

Well, if you want to look at this one comparison: Reavers don't have Power from Pain, which is hugely beneficial to a CC unit, nor are they usually run as CC units. Hellions improve as a CC unit for free throughout the game, but Reavers do not, they are what they are and that's it. There's also the point that you can only take a little more than half as many in a unit as you can in a Hellion squad, meaning less wounds until you have to roll for morale, which Hellions don't even have to worry about starting turn 5 because now they're fearless. And in order to get a better save you have to jink the Reavers which means that now you're snap shooting. Also, starting on turn 4 Hellions are hitting at Str 5, AP 5 in CC which means that they would absolutely shred a unit of Reavers, who would get no save. Of course this is all usually ignored because it's CC and CC is not that good this edition, but just because you don't find a particular set of qualities useful doesn't mean that they don't count towards balance.

Look, if you want to narrow the scope to that one comparison and say the CC takes place on turn one and the Reavers get the charge off, then yes Reavers might have a slight edge, but not enough that "OMG, they're so much better at EVERYTHING." Reavers definitely win at shooting since Hellions have none, but that's because Hellions are a dedicated CC unit. You also can't say that you don't expect perfection in every case and then trot a single, narrowly viewed case as proof that you're right. Your argument conflates FoC slots with internal balance, and that just doesn't make sense. If a codex is internally balanced then it should be balanced across the entire codex and not just among the Force Org slots because different units in the same slot aren't always meant to fill the same niche role. And I'm sorry, but if that's your standards for comparison then Reavers and Hellions shouldn't even be compared because Reavers are not really a dedicated CC unit. The only thing they have to help them are the Bladevanes, but even then you have to get the charge off or they're useless.

[Charon]

Reavers don't have Power from Pain

They have.

nor are they usually run as CC units.

They can do that in ADDITION to everything else. (S4 rending auto hit +3A on charge)

Hellions improve as a CC unit for free throughout the game, but Reavers do not

They do as they have PfP

And in order to get a better save you have to jink the Reavers which means that now you're snap shooting.

while hellions are just dying with T3. I take that snapshots ANYDAY over removing them.

And I'm sorry, but if that's your standards for comparison then Reavers and Hellions shouldn't even be compared because Reavers are not really a dedicated CC unit.

And even there Reavers are abetter CC unit than hellions. So... what does this tell you about internal balance when your dedicated CC unit does a worse job in CC than a unit that also fills other roles?

Sorry but your text is so full of rule errors (Hellions actaully can shoot) that its hard to argue about internal balance when you just assume things instead of looking them up.
You also go on about how useless reavers are when they are not charging. Same for Hellions which have ONE attack each when getting charged. Hellion on charge = 2 attacks. Reaver on charge 3 attacks + 1 HOW.

[Charistoph]

Using WMH as an example, apparently it differs from 40K in two very fundamental ways:

1) Anything can damage anything, given a Boost and some decent rolling. Granted, a bow from an Everblight Bowman might only graze the Mountain King, but it's not like Lasguns to a Heirophant which simply do nothing,

Not quite true. There are ways to make something almost indestructible to certain units. However, it takes just much crazy shenanigans to pull off that half a 25 point list is dedicated to doing just that alone.

Granted, this is far less common in WarmaHordes than in 40K.

But in this case, also, is a question of environment. Every single race has been making Armour to defeat small basic attacks like that for millenia (Tyranids an exception). On the converse side, WarmaHordes is in the early stages of their Industrial Revolution. The most advanced armies are still running Pike & Shot tactics and some are just starting to use WWI Trench Warfare strategies.

Though, the biggest advantage that PP has over GW is their development process. PP takes great pains to map every rule and benefit to minimize confusion as to how each model interacts with the others, they aren't perfect, but at least make an attempt. GW forgets on a regular basis that there are other rules that may be affected by changes.

[confoo22]

They do as they have PfP

So weird, the epub version I was using at work does not list PfP for some strange reason, so I'll admit that you're right in that one regard, but it still doesn't invalidate the three other points about how Hellions were better than Reavers in CC which you conveniently ignored along with all my other points from previous posts. Again though, they're two different units meant to address two different battlefield roles. It doesn't matter that they both reside in the same FoC slot, Hellions are dedicated CC and they are better than Reavers are in that regards. Rending on HoW is really not that fantastic, especially with str 3 behind it and no other form of AP. If these two units were locked in CC together the Hellions would have an edge, plain and simple.

Either way, I'm done with this rabbit hole, I seriously couldn't care less about Hellions versus Reavers and my post wasn't about comparing individual units but more about how CC units are usually discounted automatically by the virtue of being CC. If you wish to address, that, go for it, but if you want to argue about who's better in CC then you should start another thread about it.

[Andrew Thomas]

It doesn't matter that they both reside in the same FoC slot, Hellions are dedicated CC and they are better than Reavers are in that regards. Rending on HoW is really not that fantastic, especially with str 3 behind it and no other form of AP. If these two units were locked in CC together the Hellions would have an edge, plain and simple.

1. Str 4, 3 models/squad can do d6 Str 6 Rending or get your only source of Concussive in the list (which is stupid for a fast list)
2. as if either unit wouldn't Hit & Run out to set up another charge. (again, why the only unit in that army that gets a power weapon designed for H&R does not get H&R is just stupid lazy, but I digress.)
3. I wouldn't call upto 40 poisoned shots a turn dedicated CC.

[Charon]

Hellions are dedicated CC and they are better than Reavers are in that regards.

Except that they are not.

If these two units were locked in CC together the Hellions would have an edge, plain and simple.

Except that they do not have.
If you state something like this, please show the math. For 5 Reavers you get 6 Hellions. Even if neither of the 2 units would charge Revers would score an average of 1,666 wounds after saves while hellions are stuck with 1,5.
Hellions on the charge would inflict 2,5 wounds on reavers (that is if they lose nobody to overwatch which they can not jink), While Reavers would inflict 5,8 wounds to the Hellions if they charge (that is if they lose nobody to overwatch which they can jink on 3+). And while Hellions just die if they have to charge into terrain, Reavers may just ignore it.
So please elaborate how doing LESS damage in CC makes you a better CC unit.

I seriously couldn't care less about Hellions versus Reavers and my post wasn't about comparing individual units but more about how CC units are usually discounted automatically by the virtue of being CC.

Because you are wrong?
The argument was about internal balance, not about how underestimated CC is.
And even then CC is not automatically discarded as we still see Thunderwolves, Grotesques, Incubi, Assault Terminators, Reavers, Spawns, Orc Boys, Necron Wraiths,... on the table.
Only really BAD melee units which are lacking internal balance are discarded.

[Erik Setzer]

Using WMH as an example, apparently it differs from 40K in two very fundamental ways:

1) Anything can damage anything, given a Boost and some decent rolling. Granted, a bow from an Everblight Bowman might only graze the Mountain King, but it's not like Lasguns to a Heirophant which simply do nothing,
2) A powerful enough weapon is guaranteed to damage a weak enough model.

As far as one, it's a means to make sure you never get the, "oh hello Armoured Company list, I forget the AT weapons," dilemma that can end a game before it begins.However, WMH lacks this simply because it lacks any sort of vehicle system or integration at all, (a personal sticking point with it.) WMH's damage allocation system is more straightforward than 40K's, but suffers the alternate problem of being tedious when rolling for a large unit at once, nevermind the likes of Conscripts under FRF, SRF. One player suggested having units be able to half their shots to double their strength, but then I would personally take nothing but Guardsmen and enjoy Wounding Space Marines on 2s and Glancing light vehicles to death. Clearly, that one won't work.

The second one is just a factor of the Wounding system in 40K. They suggested making anything that is Strength double their Toughness reroll to Wound, but that on top of Instant Death would be insane IMO. Lascannons sometimes roll 1s, most of us can get over that IMO.

Actually, the first point could be gotten in 40K in a couple ways. With wounding, in WFB they actually changed the chart so you can always wound on a 6, so even S1 can hurt T10 on a 6. It makes it more viable for units of infantry to have a chance to hurt big, tough monsters. With vehicles, there was talk of a "Lucky Glancing Hits" rule, I can't remember if it was in WD or ever got anywhere, but it made it possible, however remote a chance, of even a lasgun doing something to a vehicle, with the idea being that they might get a shot into a vision slit that ricochets around, or touch off some exposed ammo or fuel, or something. It'd be possible to bring that back in, but it'd have to be a small chance or people would complain vehicles are "useless."