Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 JNAProductions wrote:
There’s a difference between paying for rules you get, and paying for rules you MIGHT get.

Mea culpa on the different factions, though. That’s fair on your end, and I apologize for insinuating you wanted it for Marines only.

You mean like Terminators that MIGHT get to teleport, or Land Raiders that MIGHT get to transport something? We've been paying upcharges on MIGHT for quite some time. On the Transport thing we've even "paid" for it twice on numerous occasions.

And its not like I'm suggesting some sort of decision tree that starts with IF X=1, Y=0, and the moon is in the seventh house then Z. Nor is that what GW has built their brand on. They create a couple-few dozen of an ability and then mix and match them into whatever. Veteran Skills. Chapter Traits (and their parallels), Stratagems, Det Abilities, Enhancements.

Vowed Objective - get +1 to wound for your Deathwing Infantry shooting at a specific location.
Storm Speeder Thunderstrike - Get +1 to wound for other of your units shooting the same Monster/Vehicle.
Its the same ability with slightly different triggers for slightly different fluff. Vowed Objective triggers for fewer units and targets a geographical area to represent the whole Stoic Picard against the Borg "The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!" thing they've got going on, while the Thunderstrike is the whole combined arms unit support thing - probably related/recycled from Land Speeders and Whirlwinds from a while back.
Beyond +1 to Wound you've also got:
Add 1 to the hit roll when...
Reroll the Hit Roll when...
Add X to Weapon Strength when...
Add 2 to Charge Rolls when...
Reroll the Charge roll when...
Can Charge and/or Shoot after Falling Back and/or Advancing when...
Can Deepstrike on Turn 1 no matter the rules when...
Cause a Battle-Shock Test when...
Gain Stealth/Infiltrators/Assorted USR's when...
Apothecary/Regenerative Swarm/Reanimation Protocols when...
Doctrines/Synaptic Imperatives when...
Reduce AP by -1 when....
Freebie Stratagems when..
Enemy Unit within X" ends their move you move 6" when...
No enemy units in engagement range, move your unit to Strategic Reserves when...
Character with Bodyguard gets FNP X+++
Reduce Damage by 1 or Set One Attack to Damage 0 when...
Fight/Shoot after Death when...

They're mainly not reinventing the wheel here, they're just recycling. I invite you to go check out the 9th Ed Chapter Tactics How many of them don't show up on this list (or wouldn't if I quit before listing them all).

 JNAProductions wrote:

Why do individual Marine chapters, numbering about 1,000 soldiers strong, get extra rules to reflect their flavor, when no one else does?

It's simple. Because SM (whatever their color) are GWs flagship army for the game.
The setting is, was, and always will be, about the SM vs everything else.
And thus SM get rules to reflect their flavor.
It's got nothing to do with some imaginary degree of fairness, or balance, or etc etc etc. Just plain old $$. The end.

ccs wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Why do individual Marine chapters, numbering about 1,000 soldiers strong, get extra rules to reflect their flavor, when no one else does?

It's simple. Because SM (whatever their color) are GWs flagship army for the game.
The setting is, was, and always will be, about the SM vs everything else.
And thus SM get rules to reflect their flavor.
It's got nothing to do with some imaginary degree of fairness, or balance, or etc etc etc. Just plain old $$. The end.

Nah, that's why SM (and especially UM) usually get it first. But it usually trickles out from there in the next edition or so. Thus why we had Hive Fleet, Craftworld Attribute, Septs, Klans, Kabals, and so on. The SM make for a bigger test bed.

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
There’s a difference between paying for rules you get, and paying for rules you MIGHT get.

Mea culpa on the different factions, though. That’s fair on your end, and I apologize for insinuating you wanted it for Marines only.

You mean like Terminators that MIGHT get to teleport, or Land Raiders that MIGHT get to transport something? We've been paying upcharges on MIGHT for quite some time. On the Transport thing we've even "paid" for it twice on numerous occasions.

There is a vast difference between paying for things you get to choose to use or not use (like Deep Strike or Transport Capacity) against things you might have access to if you pick the right sub-faction.

To go back to the Aggressor Squad, how do you put a static point value on the unit if they are +1 to Hit with Auto boltstorm guantlets if Imperial Fist, Devastating Wounds against Infantry with Flamestorm Guantlets if Salamanders, and have no bonus if any other chapter?

The simple answer is you can't. The point value either makes them too cheap when used in the best configurations or too expensive if not.

Frankly, I think the best the current game could handle would be 1 or 2 sub-faction stratagems on top of the detachment stratagems. Anything more would completely upset the apple cart.

 alextroy wrote:

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
There’s a difference between paying for rules you get, and paying for rules you MIGHT get.

Mea culpa on the different factions, though. That’s fair on your end, and I apologize for insinuating you wanted it for Marines only.

You mean like Terminators that MIGHT get to teleport, or Land Raiders that MIGHT get to transport something? We've been paying upcharges on MIGHT for quite some time. On the Transport thing we've even "paid" for it twice on numerous occasions.

There is a vast difference between paying for things you get to choose to use or not use (like Deep Strike or Transport Capacity) against things you might have access to if you pick the right sub-faction.

To go back to the Aggressor Squad, how do you put a static point value on the unit if they are +1 to Hit with Auto boltstorm guantlets if Imperial Fist, Devastating Wounds against Infantry with Flamestorm Guantlets if Salamanders, and have no bonus if any other chapter?

The simple answer is you can't. The point value either makes them too cheap when used in the best configurations or too expensive if not.

Frankly, I think the best the current game could handle would be 1 or 2 sub-faction stratagems on top of the detachment stratagems. Anything more would completely upset the apple cart.

This. Exactly this.

Dudeface wrote:
You are encouraging a "correct" or "best" way to play units based on arbitrary restrictions.

The setting is an arbitrary restriction now? By which I mean, in this case, that certain Chapters are known for their "more effective" use of certain weapon types.

Dudeface wrote:
By making a unit better if it's painted yellow, you create rules that are the default better way of using that unit. Worse, you're then punishing people who want to use that unit elsewhere, because the unit has to be priced as if its in its "correct" usage.

Or you do the fething sensible thing that I was hoping we'd see return this edition - give DA (etc) a full codex, rather than a supplement, and price things affected by DA rules appropriately.

To use Breton's examples with IF and Salamanders, you may well find that Boltstorm Aggressors cost a bit more in IF, and Flamestorm in Salamanders - but maybe neither version costs more for Raven Guard or White Scars.

If you're going to have subfaction rules like this, then there needs to be a full list of points for the subfaction, not just for their new/variant units.

I acknowledge it'd take more work to produce, for sure, but 'tis the only way to (potentially) satisfy both sides of the fence - and it opens up far more topics to argue about whether certain units are paying the right surcharge in the right subfaction...

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
You are encouraging a "correct" or "best" way to play units based on arbitrary restrictions.

The setting is an arbitrary restriction now? By which I mean, in this case, that certain Chapters are known for their "more effective" use of certain weapon types.

Dudeface wrote:
By making a unit better if it's painted yellow, you create rules that are the default better way of using that unit. Worse, you're then punishing people who want to use that unit elsewhere, because the unit has to be priced as if its in its "correct" usage.

Or you do the fething sensible thing that I was hoping we'd see return this edition - give DA (etc) a full codex, rather than a supplement, and price things affected by DA rules appropriately.

To use Breton's examples with IF and Salamanders, you may well find that Boltstorm Aggressors cost a bit more in IF, and Flamestorm in Salamanders - but maybe neither version costs more for Raven Guard or White Scars.

If you're going to have subfaction rules like this, then there needs to be a full list of points for the subfaction, not just for their new/variant units.

I acknowledge it'd take more work to produce, for sure, but 'tis the only way to (potentially) satisfy both sides of the fence - and it opens up far more topics to argue about whether certain units are paying the right surcharge in the right subfaction...

That's fine, you're willing to accept the extra compromise that Breton just hand waves away - pricing units accordingly and ringfencing accordingly to unique rules. I don't consider the setting arbitrary at all, but the way subfaction rules have interacted the prior 2 editions certainly pushes it so that there was a "right" way to run a unit and it was dictated by paint job, which didn't necessarily match up with the fluff.

you have a unit, said unit gets a point cost.

when you play a faction that provides bonuses to signature units, that faction should have a cost associated.

say you have a 2,000 point list of space marines, you paint them in some specific colours maybe you lose 5%-10% of your points, the presumption being if you take that chapter its to take advantage of that chapters rules. so now you have fewer points because the units you are expected to use are better

if you just want to run that chapter, but not their special rules, use the normal book.

probably a lot easier than scaling individual unit values

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
You are encouraging a "correct" or "best" way to play units based on arbitrary restrictions.

The setting is an arbitrary restriction now? By which I mean, in this case, that certain Chapters are known for their "more effective" use of certain weapon types.

Dudeface wrote:
By making a unit better if it's painted yellow, you create rules that are the default better way of using that unit. Worse, you're then punishing people who want to use that unit elsewhere, because the unit has to be priced as if its in its "correct" usage.

Or you do the fething sensible thing that I was hoping we'd see return this edition - give DA (etc) a full codex, rather than a supplement, and price things affected by DA rules appropriately.

To use Breton's examples with IF and Salamanders, you may well find that Boltstorm Aggressors cost a bit more in IF, and Flamestorm in Salamanders - but maybe neither version costs more for Raven Guard or White Scars.

If you're going to have subfaction rules like this, then there needs to be a full list of points for the subfaction, not just for their new/variant units.

I acknowledge it'd take more work to produce, for sure, but 'tis the only way to (potentially) satisfy both sides of the fence - and it opens up far more topics to argue about whether certain units are paying the right surcharge in the right subfaction...

Just to clairfy that's not what I said - I said Each Chapter gets different but relatively equal Chapter Traits - there's a huge list of these things GW has already made - and that chapter trait is built into the cost of the units. Lets say - for the sake of argument so I'll make it ridiculous - a Bolt Storm Aggressor costs 1200 points per model. And it costs that 1200 Points for Imperial Fists and for Ravenguard. The difference being 400 of those points for Imperial Fists is a little better shooting. 400 points for Ravenguard is being a little harder to get shot. That's the theory on how Chapter Tactics worked, but people focused on one aspect and pretended the other 3'ish didn't. I say other threeish because most chapter tactics were two of these bonus rules that didn't often overlap. Imperial Fists had Bolter Drill, and Siege Mastery. Blood Angels had The Red Thirst and Souped Up Engines Salamanders had Flame Melts All and Master Crafted Thunderhammers. The end result is each Aggressor is worth 800 points on it's own rules and has 400 points of different but roughly equivalent Chapter Tactics rules no matter which chapter its part of.

Dudeface wrote:

That's fine, you're willing to accept the extra compromise that Breton just hand waves away - pricing units accordingly and ringfencing accordingly to unique rules. I don't consider the setting arbitrary at all, but the way subfaction rules have interacted the prior 2 editions certainly pushes it so that there was a "right" way to run a unit and it was dictated by paint job, which didn't necessarily match up with the fluff.

Which has more to do with the way the players view the game and the way missions are set up for matched play than anything else.

In an ideal world, there would have been a genuine "mixed Chapter Strike Force" detachment in the book that gave zero benefits to any one specific Chapter while each of the "signature" detachments had a benefit for the Founding Legion most closely associated with them.

And the "deviant" Chapters like DA, BA, and SW plus DW would have been their own standalone books.

Breton wrote:
Just to clairfy that's not what I said - I said Each Chapter gets different but relatively equal Chapter Traits - there's a huge list of these things GW has already made - and that chapter trait is built into the cost of the units. Lets say - for the sake of argument so I'll make it ridiculous - a Bolt Storm Aggressor costs 1200 points per model. And it costs that 1200 Points for Imperial Fists and for Ravenguard. The difference being 400 of those points for Imperial Fists is a little better shooting. 400 points for Ravenguard is being a little harder to get shot. That's the theory on how Chapter Tactics worked, but people focused on one aspect and pretended the other 3'ish didn't. I say other threeish because most chapter tactics were two of these bonus rules that didn't often overlap. Imperial Fists had Bolter Drill, and Siege Mastery. Blood Angels had The Red Thirst and Souped Up Engines Salamanders had Flame Melts All and Master Crafted Thunderhammers. The end result is each Aggressor is worth 800 points on it's own rules and has 400 points of different but roughly equivalent Chapter Tactics rules no matter which chapter its part of.

This has never, ever worked. You can't make every subfaction trait equally useful for every unit, or even in the same ballpark.

Yeah, it sounds fine for Aggressors, a mixed melee/shooting unit with short range that can plausibly benefit from a variety of buffs. For anything more specialized there are clear right and wrong choices. A Devastator that re-rolls charges and a Devastator that gets a bonus to its shooting ability are not equivalent.

And there's nothing worse than having upgrade options that are "no brain" choices on the table. If there's no real choice happening then its not really a choice.


It's already annoying that GW has given us some in 10th edition. Eg Termgaunts have several specialist weapons that you can choose to take for 0 points cost. Each weapon is basically better than standard issue and gives the unit more versatility. There's basically zero reason to not take them. At which point its not really a true choice gameplay wise.

 Overread wrote:
And there's nothing worse than having upgrade options that are "no brain" choices on the table. If there's no real choice happening then its not really a choice.


It's already annoying that GW has given us some in 10th edition. Eg Termgaunts have several specialist weapons that you can choose to take for 0 points cost. Each weapon is basically better than standard issue and gives the unit more versatility. There's basically zero reason to not take them. At which point its not really a true choice gameplay wise.

I can handwave the stuff that is clearly legacy support like the weird "optionally nothing" picks. There are definitely weapons that need a little more push toward their niche to stand out against their competition.

Thing is that isn't legacy support - those specialist weapons are new ones they added with the new kits.

The previous weapons are all "One for the whole squad" deals and are all there - spinefists, devourers and fleshborers. They almost do have their own niches really; though its strange to see them with no points variation.
Interestingly GW made spinefists more attractive this edition by basically making them an objective capturing weapon choice. You throw them on and the gaunts can basically capture anything all the time if they are in range because they count as pistols.

I'm just curious if you guys will be accused of lying or twisting the truth as well, or if I'm just special.

 catbarf wrote:

Breton wrote:
Just to clairfy that's not what I said - I said Each Chapter gets different but relatively equal Chapter Traits - there's a huge list of these things GW has already made - and that chapter trait is built into the cost of the units. Lets say - for the sake of argument so I'll make it ridiculous - a Bolt Storm Aggressor costs 1200 points per model. And it costs that 1200 Points for Imperial Fists and for Ravenguard. The difference being 400 of those points for Imperial Fists is a little better shooting. 400 points for Ravenguard is being a little harder to get shot. That's the theory on how Chapter Tactics worked, but people focused on one aspect and pretended the other 3'ish didn't. I say other threeish because most chapter tactics were two of these bonus rules that didn't often overlap. Imperial Fists had Bolter Drill, and Siege Mastery. Blood Angels had The Red Thirst and Souped Up Engines Salamanders had Flame Melts All and Master Crafted Thunderhammers. The end result is each Aggressor is worth 800 points on it's own rules and has 400 points of different but roughly equivalent Chapter Tactics rules no matter which chapter its part of.

This has never, ever worked. You can't make every subfaction trait equally useful for every unit, or even in the same ballpark.

Yeah, it sounds fine for Aggressors, a mixed melee/shooting unit with short range that can plausibly benefit from a variety of buffs. For anything more specialized there are clear right and wrong choices. A Devastator that re-rolls charges and a Devastator that gets a bonus to its shooting ability are not equivalent.

A) It doesn't have to be.

B) One or the other should hit just about everything.

C) That's the case for every army, so it's still a zero sum game. Every Subfaction gets whatever fluffy 2PPM bonus trait/Fleet/Sept they're supposed to. Every subfaction is probably going to have a rare unit that gets skipped. Every Subfaction is going to pay 2PPM for that unit if they want it that doesn't help them. Sucks but fair is still fair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
I'm just curious if you guys will be accused of lying or twisting the truth as well, or if I'm just special.

I'm just curious if you can make an argument without it. If you don't want people to point out when you're lying, there is a solution.

Breton wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Breton wrote:
Just to clairfy that's not what I said - I said Each Chapter gets different but relatively equal Chapter Traits - there's a huge list of these things GW has already made - and that chapter trait is built into the cost of the units. Lets say - for the sake of argument so I'll make it ridiculous - a Bolt Storm Aggressor costs 1200 points per model. And it costs that 1200 Points for Imperial Fists and for Ravenguard. The difference being 400 of those points for Imperial Fists is a little better shooting. 400 points for Ravenguard is being a little harder to get shot. That's the theory on how Chapter Tactics worked, but people focused on one aspect and pretended the other 3'ish didn't. I say other threeish because most chapter tactics were two of these bonus rules that didn't often overlap. Imperial Fists had Bolter Drill, and Siege Mastery. Blood Angels had The Red Thirst and Souped Up Engines Salamanders had Flame Melts All and Master Crafted Thunderhammers. The end result is each Aggressor is worth 800 points on it's own rules and has 400 points of different but roughly equivalent Chapter Tactics rules no matter which chapter its part of.

This has never, ever worked. You can't make every subfaction trait equally useful for every unit, or even in the same ballpark.

Yeah, it sounds fine for Aggressors, a mixed melee/shooting unit with short range that can plausibly benefit from a variety of buffs. For anything more specialized there are clear right and wrong choices. A Devastator that re-rolls charges and a Devastator that gets a bonus to its shooting ability are not equivalent.

A) It doesn't have to be.

B) One or the other should hit just about everything.

C) That's the case for every army, so it's still a zero sum game. Every Subfaction gets whatever fluffy 2PPM bonus trait/Fleet/Sept they're supposed to. Every subfaction is probably going to have a rare unit that gets skipped. Every Subfaction is going to pay 2PPM for that unit if they want it that doesn't help them. Sucks but fair is still fair.

A) In theory you could make them balanced perfectly.
But in practice, it's never worked. What makes you think it would work this time?

B) The issue is that, if Subfaction A buffs shooting and does nothing for melee, people will take mostly shooting. Not an even mixture of both, where it makes the overly-good balanced by those not buffed.

leopard wrote:
you have a unit, said unit gets a point cost.

when you play a faction that provides bonuses to signature units, that faction should have a cost associated.

say you have a 2,000 point list of space marines, you paint them in some specific colours maybe you lose 5%-10% of your points, the presumption being if you take that chapter its to take advantage of that chapters rules. so now you have fewer points because the units you are expected to use are better

if you just want to run that chapter, but not their special rules, use the normal book.

probably a lot easier than scaling individual unit values

Why do you scale the individual unit values? If everything in your Subfaction gets the Veteran Skill Tank Hunters that's worth 1PPM, and everything in the other subfaction gets Stealth worth 1PPM, and everything in XYZ faction's subfactions gets USR #3 or USR#4 which are also worth 1PPM, everybody's base cost and final cost are the same. A model worth 25 points per model either gets priced at 27 because we're going to include the 2PPM every faction and subfaction will pay or we just bury the 2PPM worth of bonus every faction and subfaction gets under the zero because every faction and subfaction is paying 2PPM extra for every model in every unit. Its not rocket science. Every model has 1 Wound, 2 Strength, 1 Toughness, 1 Leadership and so on. You don't pay for the first one, you pay for the ones beyond the first one. Same with Tactics/Sept/And-So-On Everyone gets 2PPM or whatever it is... bury it under the zero. Or add two. It doesn't really matter other than if you bury it 2000 points is bigger than if you don't.

Breton wrote:

leopard wrote:
you have a unit, said unit gets a point cost.

when you play a faction that provides bonuses to signature units, that faction should have a cost associated.

say you have a 2,000 point list of space marines, you paint them in some specific colours maybe you lose 5%-10% of your points, the presumption being if you take that chapter its to take advantage of that chapters rules. so now you have fewer points because the units you are expected to use are better

if you just want to run that chapter, but not their special rules, use the normal book.

probably a lot easier than scaling individual unit values

Why do you scale the individual unit values? If everything in your Subfaction gets the Veteran Skill Tank Hunters that's worth 1PPM, and everything in the other subfaction gets Stealth worth 1PPM, and everything in XYZ faction's subfactions gets USR #3 or USR#4 which are also worth 1PPM, everybody's base cost and final cost are the same. A model worth 25 points per model either gets priced at 27 because we're going to include the 2PPM every faction and subfaction will pay or we just bury the 2PPM worth of bonus every faction and subfaction gets under the zero because every faction and subfaction is paying 2PPM extra for every model in every unit. Its not rocket science. Every model has 1 Wound, 2 Strength, 1 Toughness, 1 Leadership and so on. You don't pay for the first one, you pay for the ones beyond the first one. Same with Tactics/Sept/And-So-On Everyone gets 2PPM or whatever it is... bury it under the zero. Or add two. It doesn't really matter other than if you bury it 2000 points is bigger than if you don't.

Breton, please post an example of a few Subfaction traits that are balanced. Because, again, this has never worked in practice.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I'm just curious if you guys will be accused of lying or twisting the truth as well, or if I'm just special.

I'm just curious if you can make an argument without it. If you don't want people to point out when you're lying, there is a solution.

I made the exact same points as everyone else in here.

Edit: better yet, quote me being duplicitous please.

I won't say you lied, but it did feel like some of your replies to me were a bit strawman-y. That's why I asked about the weird "allies" bit you'd mentioned.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Breton wrote:
Just to clairfy that's not what I said - I said Each Chapter gets different but relatively equal Chapter Traits - there's a huge list of these things GW has already made - and that chapter trait is built into the cost of the units. Lets say - for the sake of argument so I'll make it ridiculous - a Bolt Storm Aggressor costs 1200 points per model. And it costs that 1200 Points for Imperial Fists and for Ravenguard. The difference being 400 of those points for Imperial Fists is a little better shooting. 400 points for Ravenguard is being a little harder to get shot. That's the theory on how Chapter Tactics worked, but people focused on one aspect and pretended the other 3'ish didn't. I say other threeish because most chapter tactics were two of these bonus rules that didn't often overlap. Imperial Fists had Bolter Drill, and Siege Mastery. Blood Angels had The Red Thirst and Souped Up Engines Salamanders had Flame Melts All and Master Crafted Thunderhammers. The end result is each Aggressor is worth 800 points on it's own rules and has 400 points of different but roughly equivalent Chapter Tactics rules no matter which chapter its part of.

This has never, ever worked. You can't make every subfaction trait equally useful for every unit, or even in the same ballpark.

Yeah, it sounds fine for Aggressors, a mixed melee/shooting unit with short range that can plausibly benefit from a variety of buffs. For anything more specialized there are clear right and wrong choices. A Devastator that re-rolls charges and a Devastator that gets a bonus to its shooting ability are not equivalent.

A) It doesn't have to be.

B) One or the other should hit just about everything.

C) That's the case for every army, so it's still a zero sum game. Every Subfaction gets whatever fluffy 2PPM bonus trait/Fleet/Sept they're supposed to. Every subfaction is probably going to have a rare unit that gets skipped. Every Subfaction is going to pay 2PPM for that unit if they want it that doesn't help them. Sucks but fair is still fair.

A) In theory you could make them balanced perfectly.
But in practice, it's never worked. What makes you think it would work this time?

Because it doesn't have to work perfectly. There are many things that aren't working perfectly in this game. We're not holding them to the same standard. And, it HAS worked in the past. Not perfectly but it worked. The game did not die because we had Chapter Tactics etc for a couple editions.

B) The issue is that, if Subfaction A buffs shooting and does nothing for melee, people will take mostly shooting. Not an even mixture of both, where it makes the overly-good balanced by those not buffed.

Yeah people are generally already generally taking the shooting because melee is being artificially constrained. 40K was almost always more about shooting while Fantasy was almost always more about fighting. And some Armies naturally fluff away from fighting, like Tau, or natraully fluff into it and away from shooting like Khorne. I'm pretty sure nobody expects to see Tau Smash Captains or Khorne Gunlines enough to demand they get an out-of-fluff Sept/etc.

It's never worked WELL either.

None of your examples work well. And yes, you didn't intend them to-but that's because it's, at a minimum, really flipping hard to make them reasonably balanced.

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I'm just curious if you guys will be accused of lying or twisting the truth as well, or if I'm just special.

I'm just curious if you can make an argument without it. If you don't want people to point out when you're lying, there is a solution.

I made the exact same points as everyone else in here.

Edit: better yet, quote me being duplicitous please.

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:


1 dollar is a better MATCH to 1 penny than a $100,000 bill. This does not make the $1 bill better. Better match is not inherently better. A Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings. This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth. But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).

No, you agreed that imperial fist should just take boltstorm aggressors as that unit better matches their fluff, no extra rules needed. Glad we agree at last!

No problem. As someone else already pointed out your go-to moves are strawmen and other logical fallacies.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
It's never worked WELL either.

None of your examples work well. And yes, you didn't intend them to-but that's because it's, at a minimum, really flipping hard to make them reasonably balanced.

Sure it did. It worked just fine. It could have been better, but the game did not die, the game did not fail, there wasn't a point where any individual game had to stop because the rules actually failed.Also my examples were taken from the 10th Ed Index and Codex Datasheets. They're still in there. The Red Thirst is just part of the BA Det now instead of their Chapter Tactic. Seige Mastery is still there, its just in the IF Det. Stealth is a USR in the CORE book. All the examples I just listed are repeated throughout rulebooks and datasheets.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I won't say you lied, but it did feel like some of your replies to me were a bit strawman-y. That's why I asked about the weird "allies" bit you'd mentioned.

That's ok, thank you for the feedback. That's likely just me being clumsy with wording but either way that can be asked for clarity (sorry if I missed it) or at the very least something I can learn from. Being told you're lying because you can provide a counter argument doesn't help. So in a final attempt to learn something or correct something, I need to know what I falsely presented.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

leopard wrote:
you have a unit, said unit gets a point cost.

when you play a faction that provides bonuses to signature units, that faction should have a cost associated.

say you have a 2,000 point list of space marines, you paint them in some specific colours maybe you lose 5%-10% of your points, the presumption being if you take that chapter its to take advantage of that chapters rules. so now you have fewer points because the units you are expected to use are better

if you just want to run that chapter, but not their special rules, use the normal book.

probably a lot easier than scaling individual unit values

Why do you scale the individual unit values? If everything in your Subfaction gets the Veteran Skill Tank Hunters that's worth 1PPM, and everything in the other subfaction gets Stealth worth 1PPM, and everything in XYZ faction's subfactions gets USR #3 or USR#4 which are also worth 1PPM, everybody's base cost and final cost are the same. A model worth 25 points per model either gets priced at 27 because we're going to include the 2PPM every faction and subfaction will pay or we just bury the 2PPM worth of bonus every faction and subfaction gets under the zero because every faction and subfaction is paying 2PPM extra for every model in every unit. Its not rocket science. Every model has 1 Wound, 2 Strength, 1 Toughness, 1 Leadership and so on. You don't pay for the first one, you pay for the ones beyond the first one. Same with Tactics/Sept/And-So-On Everyone gets 2PPM or whatever it is... bury it under the zero. Or add two. It doesn't really matter other than if you bury it 2000 points is bigger than if you don't.

Breton, please post an example of a few Subfaction traits that are balanced. Because, again, this has never worked in practice.

The actual results of things like this usually ends up with the subfaction that pays for the extra bonus being the worst version because they have to pay a tax for a bonus that isn't worth paying for

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:


1 dollar is a better MATCH to 1 penny than a $100,000 bill. This does not make the $1 bill better. Better match is not inherently better. A Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings. This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth. But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).

No, you agreed that imperial fist should just take boltstorm aggressors as that unit better matches their fluff, no extra rules needed. Glad we agree at last!

No problem. As someone else already pointed out your go-to moves are strawmen and other logical fallacies.

That was sarcasm largely, you stated very plainly:

Better match is not inherently better.

It can fit a theme to suit the owners fluff, no need or mention of rules.

Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings.

Again that's aesthetics, it doesn't mention rules at all.

This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth.

Because they're comparative units and you're picking on their belonging in a different army to somehow validate this.

But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).

Because you didn't outright imply that IF to continue the example should get better rules - you said boltstorm aggressors are a better match for an IF army, which they are. I haven't lied, you've literally said you don't want them to be "better" for IF, just match the fluff and army better, which they do by virtue of their loadout.

I'm sorry if you've misunderstood that point. The sarcasm was because I knew as well as you do, that you wanted them to have better rules with bolters in fists armies via whatever means, yet your post actually agreed with me.

Hopefully I've outlined this, if you still don't understand I can't really help much more I don't think.

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:


1 dollar is a better MATCH to 1 penny than a $100,000 bill. This does not make the $1 bill better. Better match is not inherently better. A Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings. This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth. But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).

No, you agreed that imperial fist should just take boltstorm aggressors as that unit better matches their fluff, no extra rules needed. Glad we agree at last!

No problem. As someone else already pointed out your go-to moves are strawmen and other logical fallacies.

That was sarcasm largely, you stated very plainly:

Better match is not inherently better.

It can fit a theme to suit the owners fluff, no need or mention of rules.

Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings.

Again that's aesthetics, it doesn't mention rules at all.

This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth.

Because they're comparative units and you're picking on their belonging in a different army to somehow validate this.

But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).

Because you didn't outright imply that IF to continue the example should get better rules - you said boltstorm aggressors are a better match for an IF army, which they are. I haven't lied, you've literally said you don't want them to be "better" for IF, just match the fluff and army better, which they do by virtue of their loadout.

I'm sorry if you've misunderstood that point. The sarcasm was because I knew as well as you do, that you wanted them to have better rules with bolters in fists armies via whatever means, yet your post actually agreed with me.

Hopefully I've outlined this, if you still don't understand I can't really help much more I don't think.

Better rules in IF and better rules in RG - as has been outlined plainly and you still duplicitously imply hasn't been - doesn't make either version better overall.

Breton wrote:
Better rules in IF and better rules in RG - as has been outlined plainly and you still duplicitously imply hasn't been - doesn't make either version better overall.

Demonstrate it's possible to have them balanced, to at least a reasonable degree.

What subfaction trait is equally good for Devastators from White Scars, Imperial Fists, and Ultramarines?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:
Better rules in IF and better rules in RG - as has been outlined plainly and you still duplicitously imply hasn't been - doesn't make either version better overall.

Demonstrate it's possible to have them balanced, to at least a reasonable degree.

What subfaction trait is equally good for Devastators from White Scars, Imperial Fists, and Ultramarines?

White Scars (Lightning Strike) count as stationary even if they moved but didn't advance.

Imperial Fists (Seige Warfare) get +1 to wound vs Vehicles and Fortifications

Ultramarines (Codex Compliant) get +1 to wound vs OOM Target.

I'm not sure that's 100% even - but its pretty close and should get you in the ballpark.