"What does "Army X is Broken" mean?" Topic

In the context of tournament armies with points costs, of course.

BTW, pease start your own "I am too intelligent to play with points and lists" thread if that was going to be your knee jerk response. That is not the question that I am asking, and I have heard all that boring drivel before.

It means that there is some thing within the armythat is an unavoidable exploitable weakness or an irresistable strength that makes it unbeatable.

For example the high elf army in Warmaster is broken because in a 2000 pt army you can take two dragons, fly them over the enemy general, when he falls back to the unit behind him no matter what unit it is, it will probably not be able to survive the assault of two dragons and will be destroyed, killing the general and ending the first game.

As long as you recognize flaws like this ahead of time they can be fixed. And as long as they are not too systemic.

It can also mean that it is a new army list and people don't know how to fight against it yet. So the players that play will have gone over the list well and pulled out all the good bits but opponents won't know it as well, as it is not the only army they are focused on, and won't see the weaknesses for a little while.

As I've heard it used, the meaning seemed to be, roughly, "Army X is guaranteed to win every time" or "Army X can be easily defeated by [widely known but not necessarily realistic or rational] specific tactics."

As in, "The Japanese 1936 paratrooper army list is broken. If you find yourself up against someone playing them, just buy a bunch of Stukas and a bicycle recon platoon. You'll win in three turns."

The Burgundian army of Charles the Bold is broken. That has nothing to do with army lists.

Allen

It means either an army can get more effective troops for equal or lesser points relative to other armies or combinations within the army list allow it to build a force that other armies can't deal/compete with for equal points. Its all so subjective that you'd need a play test group to verify it.

I am too intelligent to play with points and lists

Good lord, John, you're some belligerant.

Answering your question, it means some of the gun barrels are broken off your tank models and need to be repaired. Damn, what a stupid question.

Seriously, althought I am too intelligent to play with points and lists, I've heard local points type players on the local groups use this expression and I've never asked what it meant. The above responses are interesting and I look forward to more.

In the meantimem I simply had to have a go at a totally inane answer…
--
Tim

It means "I paid HOW MUCH for this Army that can't clean a table in 2 turns?"

It can also mean "i chose a rotten combination of troops and lost"
of course it is never the players fault when he gets beaten!

More often it is a a problem of the game that uses "Factions" and gives each factions weaknesses and strengths

You will allways get an imbalance unless you state that faction X cannot field Y when playing faction Z

it means "I lost and armyX was my opponent!"
there is no other explanation for the loss.
j/k

I think it means "+2 for being British is OK, because I have British, but +4 for being French is way too much".

It means that there is some thing within the armythat is an unavoidable exploitable weakness or an irresistable strength that makes it unbeatable.

That's what it means to me.

If giving the French +4 just for being French (even when retreating from Moscow in the winter) and it makes them unbeatable, then yes, the army list is broken and needs a rethink.

I'm just curious what made Kyoteblue delete his usual one-word response.

Its all so subjective that you'd need a play test group to verify it.

A truly broken Army is generally plain to all.

The two dragon Warmaster Elf army doesn't need terribly much verification.

WRG Ancients lists had holes a mile wide. A general's mount was free, so any army with generals on an elephant had a huge advantage. If they were Burmese, then the points advantage was ridiculous (basically they got to play with 100 points more than their opponents).

Likewise under 6th edition the Samurai effectively got free horses because of the poor way the points were done. (A HC dismounting as EHI was cheaper than an EHI who was mounted infantry.) It was a moronic loophole.

What is the opposite term, for an army list that is underprivileged and uncompetitive?

When I played the weakest archetype in an online game, we used the term 'gimped'.

About the Warmaster High Elf army- I never tried the two dragon thing. I thought one dragon was just fine! I've never been good at finding exploits…

I've never heard broken used in the context of an army being unbeatable, but in the context of the army having a significant advantage over all other armies or having a significant disadvantages compared to all other armies. It can be used for both good and bad.

Darn it, I was going to use two dragons just because they look cool.

For me, broken means giving a one-sided and unamusing game against at least some opponents. Not necessarily auto-win, since theres a sort of rock-paper-scissors effect in some games. WIth the extreme list you can put the armies down, maybe roll for first turn, then skip all the tedious figure-moving and dice rolling and go straight to result hand-in.

To me, "broken" means bends the rules to the point that it breaks them. There are certain constants in any game – turn order, steps within a turn, how morale or combat is resolved, how an army is constructed, etc. A broken army can exploit some loophole in the rules such that it dominates others. The game then revolves around either playing a broken army or one that is designed to deal with it. This "mini-maxing" tends to stay away from most peoples' idea of how their historical or fantasy simulation should play out. And is usually less fun for all.

(I've been lurking for a while but felt the need to get my two cents in on this.)

A force that was good/powerful but is rendered impotent due to rules changes is "nerfed"

My experience playing GW games is that "X army is broken" is a rather quick response to a situation where the other player sucks at the game and wants to cover that up by claiming that said army is unfair to play against knowing that once said army is announced as broken the player lacking skill will get simpathy. My response to them is to announce that they suck at the game.

It means a GW player has joined the conversation.

There is normally a timing element involved. Whenever a change is made in an existing points based army/fleet/whatever, there is usually a race to claim the high ground in the broken v nerfed race. After the initial quick analysis and yelling produces a plurality of complaint for broken v nerfed, the rules writers are generally lobbied until a change is made whereupon the other side gets to immediately cry foul.

It can also refer to cases where army lists have options which no-one in their right mind is ever going to take.

Again, these usually reflect a large dissconnet between points costs and effeciveness.

"Broken" is a metaphor equating a game system to a machine. It is a common term in all facets of gaming. It connotes some aspect, aka "mechanical part", of the game (rule, army, etc.) that doesn't work as intended within the context of the rest of the game.

Sometimes it infers that inadequate analysis or testing took place which allowed whatever is "broken" into the system. "Broken" rules frequently only reveal their flaws in specific, infrequently occuring, circumstances. For this reason, game designers who depend on playing games (play testing) to flush out problems, often find themselves victims of their own lack of analysis.

For this reason, game designers who depend on playing games (play testing) to flush out problems, often find themselves victims of their own lack of analysis.

Insert "Needs Blindtesting" rant here.

Ahem.

I've heard "broken" used as XRV describes, applying to any part of a ruleset that does not function the way it should. This can be an army or some small part of that army, a general rule that leads to comic-tragedy in the one case you've ever been able to apply it, or some common part of the rules that simply does not work as intended.

A "broken" army list will contain something, and possibly multiple somethings, that "break" gameplay around that army. Example: that 4th Ed 40k Psychic power for Marines that could cause the entire enemy force to flee the table for 5 points.

General rules that are laffers but fairly rare and specific in their usage include another 40k example: the Virus Bombing strategy card from 2nd edition.

Commonly known examples of the third class are rarer, as we tend to never go back to rules that are that bad.

It means either A) "I can't win when I am playing this army" or B)"I can't win when I'm playing against that army".

The most horribly broken, "what was the rules author on, and where can I get some?" rule I have ever seen as concerns points based army lists is the one that gives some troop types a negative base points cost. Instead of bein liabilities they become offsets allowing the purchase of lots of expensive, shiny toys…

It could mean "I am too pigheaded to use points to give some sort of play balance, instead prefering to go on and on about how battles are not fair, without recognising that
a) its a game and one sided battles are no fun
b) Good generals tried to maneuver so they had that advantage, yet I will ignore that and set up a bias battle, irrespective of the players abilities in a strategic context and
c) Historical orders of battle are inaccurate, a point I repeatedly refuse to accept
and thus
the army that you have has not got a snowball's chance, even though it is accurate and historic in my opinion"