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.

Welcome ladies and gentleman, boys and girls, children of all ages.

I believe that most would agree that 40k is imbalanced, especially at the unit and Codex level. This imbalance isn't a huge deal when you are playing a Beer and Pretzels game or Forging the Narrative, but is problematic when you are looking for balanced, competitive, and tournament oriented games. Most people want a balanced 40k, but few can agree on how it should be done, or if it should be done at all. Some want to regress back to 5th edition, some want to open the flood gates unrestrained and unbound, others want a comp system, etc. But, what is the right answer?

Why does most comp and re-balancing fail? Often sweeping changes are made that don't foresee the potential ramifications of those changes. For instance, Highlander, 0-1 comp, is meant to counter spam, but doesn't stop things like CentStars etc and actually widens the power gap. It kills armies that have few good choices while further buffing armies like Eldar who have few bad choices. Comp systems are often ultra subjective and vary wildly depending on who is writing them or evaluating them.

What I am looking to do is create a system of simple Errata aimed at not only addressing some problems at the rules/army construction level, but re-balancing units at the Codex level. I'm not looking to rewrite entire codices, but to fix the cost or special rules/interactions that lend to us seeing a very narrow selection of units from armies or only very specific unit builds.

For instance, how many Footslogging DPs or Hive Tyrants have you seen lately? The answer, pretty much none. Why? Well, the base T6 3+AS chassis for the Tyrant and the base profile for the DP are overcosted while the Wings and Daemonic Flight upgrades are undercosted. The end result may be fairly balanced, but its an underpriced upgrade tacked onto an overpriced chassis. If we balance out the base cost of the DP and Tyrant and more accurately cost the Flight upgrades we create better balance and a more equal incentive to field both Ground and Flying versions of those two units. Another example would be the capabilities and cost of a Wraithlord and a Wraithknight.

My intent is to start with Codex: Space Marines and fix its internal balance and externally balance towards the "middle" of the power spectrum. Once C:SM is internally and externally balanced I will use it to re-balance DA, BA, SW, GK, and CSM as it is quite easy with comparable units with only the Special Rules and special snowflake(unique) units/upgrades to consider. Using these books as a reference point I intend to tweak each Codex via a Balance Errata to greatly eliminate the current imbalances.

Now, not every unit, upgrade, or special rule needs to be addressed, the truth is far from it. We are looking at the both ends of the Bell Curve, the Underpowered/Overcosted and Overpowered/Undercosted units. The center 2/3 to 3/4 of the units may be just fine. Some armies need a tweak to their special rules to fix most of their issues, for instance correcting Mob Rule for Orks goes a long way to fixing their individual units.

I am by no means an expert of every unit and Codex in 40k, far from it, but I've got a fair hand at balance, math, and listening to those who know more than me. I hereby request the help of Dakka to make this pet project a reality. I am going to use this thread as a starting point to nail down the initial Rule/Army Construction changes as well as links to each individual army. I am open to any and all suggestions, generally the simplest fixes are best.

Zagman's Balance Errata


Change log



That is what I have for widespread Rules Adjustments at this point in time. My intention is deal with problematic things like Invisibility, 2+/2++ Rerollable, Imbalanced Battle Brother Synergy, SH/GCs, Flyer/FMC Spam, and Summoning in one go. Granted some things like Daemon's Grimiore 2++ a Rerollable will be dealt with at the Codex level, but can be addressed to cover all such instances at the broad level.

So, let me have it! I'll be looking at Codex: Soace Marines next.

Does your battle brothers stipulations affect Codex SM units that take different chapter tactics?

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Does your battle brothers stipulations affect Codex SM units that take different chapter tactics?

I intended it to, yes. I probably need to explicitly say that, and intended to in the C:SM Codex Balance Errata. From a balance stand point SM lose nothing they relied on and gain no I balancing advantage. I guess it is no different than BA, DA, SW, etc.

Love the idea. Most balance can be achieved by points changes. Perhaps Decurion could be set to 5+ RP, with normal Necron RP at 6+.

How do we force players to use it? Especially Necron and Eldar.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Love the idea. Most balance can be achieved by points changes. Perhaps Decurion could be set to 5+ RP, with normal Necron RP at 6+.

How do we force players to use it? Especially Necron and Eldar.

Thanks!

Decurion's major problem is that it adds +33% durability to most of the entire army in addition to the Formation bonuses. And in some cases, Canopek Harvest can grant Wraiths RP which is then boosted, it adds 100% to Wraith Durability. Unacceptable. I believe that Necron are fairly well balanced without Decurion RP Bonus. I'd remove it, as they already receive formation bonuses, which are quite good, for all units as well.

We don't force them, we encourage its use in gaming groups and in tournaments. If it works as planned, which it should, by greatly improving balance it will yield a more varied and enjoyable experience for a wide array of players. The competitive players have more options to work with, more varied builds, and more TAC oriented list building, whereas the casual and pickup players would have a more enjoyable and easier to negotiate experience.

If this works, it's win win for everyone,mahout of those looking to use SH/GCs, which is why I'd make a separate one for their inclusion later and have to Standards, Classic(Very limited SH/GCs) and Modern(Much Looser GC/SH usage, basically ApocLite but more balanced)

Now, not every unit, upgrade, or special rule needs to be addressed, the truth is far from it. We are looking at the both ends of the Bell Curve, the Underpowered/Overcosted and Overpowered/Undercosted units. The center 2/3 to 3/4 of the units may be just fine. Some armies need a tweak to their special rules to fix most of their issues, for instance correcting Mob Rule for Orks goes a long way to fixing their individual units.

Whatever change you make, please just remove the necessity of rolling up to seven sets of dice for a morale test when this rule is tweaked. [Ld, mob rule, re-roll, d6 hits, wound rolls, armour rolls, FNP roll]

Would be in favour of a slightly more comprehensive change to remove some of the unnecessary rolling alongside the unnecessarily crap balance myself, but maybe thats a topic for another thread.

 Zagman wrote:
Flyers and FMCs: Only one Flyer or FMC per full 500pts in the list.

IOW, Elysian drop troops are banned. Instead of putting severe limits like this on army construction why not fix the balance with FMCs so that spamming them isn't a problem?

*Yes, this is very prohibitive of LoWs currently, for balance purposes they are very limited in availability for armies and have wildly varying power levels requiring detailed fix/ban lists.

You don't really need a complex ban list since most LoW are weak and need buffs to be competitive. All you have to do to fix the overpowered LoW: Warhound and Revenant titans can not take D-weapons, Reaver and Phantom titans are banned, and any psychic power/buff/debuff/etc (other than those that are normal attacks with strength values) that does not explicitly apply to superheavies and/or GCs has no effect on them.

 Zagman wrote:
I believe that most would agree that 40k is imbalanced, especially at the unit and Codex level. This imbalance isn't a huge deal when you are playing a Beer and Pretzels game or Forging the Narrative, but is problematic when you are looking for balanced, competitive, and tournament oriented games.

Honestly, I feel like its more the other way around.
Competitive (tourney) players go in to a game with the expectation that their opponent has a relatively optimized list; they are in a situation where sweeping restrictions can be easily imposed.
Casual players turning up with unoptimized, fluffy or cool looking lists are much more susceptible to having wild swings in balance, because they haven't made the attempt to do some balancing themselves with list building.

Just my 2c.

For instance, how many Footslogging DPs or Hive Tyrants have you seen lately? The answer, pretty much none. Why? Well, the base T6 3+AS chassis for the Tyrant and the base profile for the DP are overcosted while the Wings and Daemonic Flight upgrades are undercosted. The end result may be fairly balanced, but its an underpriced upgrade tacked onto an overpriced chassis. If we balance out the base cost of the DP and Tyrant and more accurately cost the Flight upgrades we create better balance and a more equal incentive to field both Ground and Flying versions of those two units. Another example would be the capabilities and cost of a Wraithlord and a Wraithknight.

In this particular case, its simply their speed that is the issue. Similarly with combat Dreadnoughts.
So much stuff can out-shoot and out-maneuver a single T6/3+ model infantry model that it simply doesn't make sense to field it no matter what the points cost. I honestly think you'd need to drop a Daemon Prince's cost from 145 to 65 or so to make it even worth considering.

Malefic Daemonology
Summoning: Conjuration(4)
Sacrifice: Conjuration(3)
Incursion: Conjuration(4)
Possession: Conjuration(4)

There is essentially two armies that can take advantage of daemon summoning to a serious extent: Fateweaver + 4xHeralds/2xHorrors, or the 4x Nurgle Prince + 2xHeralds/2xHorrors alternative. Its not a cheap army by any means: you're looking at (minimum) 300pts of summoners (2x11 horrors + 1xLv3 herald) to be able to cast incursion with a 77% chance of success. Its only really possible because you can get 2 WC per troops choice and/or 4 heralds per HQ choice. Bumping that up to 4 dice puts it at 9 dice per cast and you've made it so that no-one other than Tzeentch Daemons can possibly use this strategy, while still not actually effecting the army (as daemon summoning builds will most likely be at 14+ base dice and counting on 2 summons per turn anyway)

If you changed horrors to having a shooting attack that does D6 shots per every 5 partial horrors in the unit (like the function of the rule was when the codex was written) and/or bump up the cost of Tzeralds by ~20pts, the issue mostly goes away, without completely wrecking daemon summoning for the armies that use it as an asset rather than their core strategy

While you aren't "there" yet, heres a first pass for what I'd do to Necrons:
-No Decurion. Use the CAD instead (removing the RP bonus might be enough, instead, though)
-I think Wraiths should go back to T4.
Not sure that anything else is necessary.

Just a rough first pass.

Dakkamite wrote:

Now, not every unit, upgrade, or special rule needs to be addressed, the truth is far from it. We are looking at the both ends of the Bell Curve, the Underpowered/Overcosted and Overpowered/Undercosted units. The center 2/3 to 3/4 of the units may be just fine. Some armies need a tweak to their special rules to fix most of their issues, for instance correcting Mob Rule for Orks goes a long way to fixing their individual units.

Whatever change you make, please just remove the necessity of rolling up to seven sets of dice for a morale test when this rule is tweaked. [Ld, mob rule, re-roll, d6 hits, wound rolls, armour rolls, FNP roll]

Would be in favour of a slightly more comprehensive change to remove some of the unnecessary rolling alongside the unnecessarily crap balance myself, but maybe thats a topic for another thread.

I'm a fan of something closer to the old Mob Rule, the current one is a massive handicap, convoluted, and involves so much unnecessary rolling. I was thinking about this...

Mob Rule: An Ork Mob may always choose to substitute the number of boyz in their Mob for their normal Leadership value. If the Mob numbers 10 or more the Mob has a Leadership value of 10 and on a failed morale or Pinning test suffers a d3 wounds at AP- allocated by the controlling player and counts as passing the Morale or Pinning Test.

Bosspole: A model with a Bosspole can chose to deal a Wound at AP- allocated by the controlling player to reroll a failed Morale or Pinning test.

Peregrine wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
Flyers and FMCs: Only one Flyer or FMC per full 500pts in the list.

IOW, Elysian drop troops are banned. Instead of putting severe limits like this on army construction why not fix the balance with FMCs so that spamming them isn't a problem?

*Yes, this is very prohibitive of LoWs currently, for balance purposes they are very limited in availability for armies and have wildly varying power levels requiring detailed fix/ban lists.

You don't really need a complex ban list since most LoW are weak and need buffs to be competitive. All you have to do to fix the overpowered LoW: Warhound and Revenant titans can not take D-weapons, Reaver and Phantom titans are banned, and any psychic power/buff/debuff/etc (other than those that are normal attacks with strength values) that does not explicitly apply to superheavies and/or GCs has no effect on them.

Very good point about Elysians. Currently I'm trying to focus on Codex +Supplement content. Adding Forgeworld into the mix is much more of an undertaking.

The problem with trying to Balance Flyers is the relative availability of AA for armies, most have the ability to counter one flyer or fmc per 500pts available to them, very few have access to enough readily available and cost effective AA to handle more than that. Fliers often require specialized AA which just doesn't exist for many armies which makes the balancing of Flyers and FMCs incredibly difficult. Look at the PentaRant list, it is strong because most lists just can't handle that many FMCs, they just can't bring enough quality AA to the table. So, trying to balance Flyers and FMCs without major core rules changes is incredibly difficult if not impossible and would require much more prevalant AA options across multiple codices. 3 Flyers/FMCs at 1500 or 1850 is something most lists could reasonably be able to counter.

You are right about LoW, most aren't majorly imbalanced, but some are. My biggest problem is limited access for many factions and again it is opening up all of Forgeworld which is a bit beyond the current and immediate scope of this Balance Errata. I'm looking at the Codex SH/GC LoWs, but anything beyond the Codex is outside of the Scope of this immediate Fix. And yes, IKs will need to be looked at, although they are fairly balanced as is, its the Codices without SH/GCs that require immediate attention. Its why I was looking at a second balance errata, one specifically aimed at adding SH/GCs and they'd be fully compatible.

Trasvi wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
I believe that most would agree that 40k is imbalanced, especially at the unit and Codex level. This imbalance isn't a huge deal when you are playing a Beer and Pretzels game or Forging the Narrative, but is problematic when you are looking for balanced, competitive, and tournament oriented games.

Honestly, I feel like its more the other way around.
Competitive (tourney) players go in to a game with the expectation that their opponent has a relatively optimized list; they are in a situation where sweeping restrictions can be easily imposed.
Casual players turning up with unoptimized, fluffy or cool looking lists are much more susceptible to having wild swings in balance, because they haven't made the attempt to do some balancing themselves with list building.

Just my 2c.

For instance, how many Footslogging DPs or Hive Tyrants have you seen lately? The answer, pretty much none. Why? Well, the base T6 3+AS chassis for the Tyrant and the base profile for the DP are overcosted while the Wings and Daemonic Flight upgrades are undercosted. The end result may be fairly balanced, but its an underpriced upgrade tacked onto an overpriced chassis. If we balance out the base cost of the DP and Tyrant and more accurately cost the Flight upgrades we create better balance and a more equal incentive to field both Ground and Flying versions of those two units. Another example would be the capabilities and cost of a Wraithlord and a Wraithknight.

In this particular case, its simply their speed that is the issue. Similarly with combat Dreadnoughts.
So much stuff can out-shoot and out-maneuver a single T6/3+ model infantry model that it simply doesn't make sense to field it no matter what the points cost. I honestly think you'd need to drop a Daemon Prince's cost from 145 to 65 or so to make it even worth considering.

Malefic Daemonology
Summoning: Conjuration(4)
Sacrifice: Conjuration(3)
Incursion: Conjuration(4)
Possession: Conjuration(4)

There is essentially two armies that can take advantage of daemon summoning to a serious extent: Fateweaver + 4xHeralds/2xHorrors, or the 4x Nurgle Prince + 2xHeralds/2xHorrors alternative. Its not a cheap army by any means: you're looking at (minimum) 300pts of summoners (2x11 horrors + 1xLv3 herald) to be able to cast incursion with a 77% chance of success. Its only really possible because you can get 2 WC per troops choice and/or 4 heralds per HQ choice. Bumping that up to 4 dice puts it at 9 dice per cast and you've made it so that no-one other than Tzeentch Daemons can possibly use this strategy, while still not actually effecting the army (as daemon summoning builds will most likely be at 14+ base dice and counting on 2 summons per turn anyway)

If you changed horrors to having a shooting attack that does D6 shots per every 5 partial horrors in the unit (like the function of the rule was when the codex was written) and/or bump up the cost of Tzeralds by ~20pts, the issue mostly goes away, without completely wrecking daemon summoning for the armies that use it as an asset rather than their core strategy

Competitive play suffers from drastically limited options, sure well crafted tournament lists play in a narrower focus, but they do so with limited options and eliminate many codices and options outright.

Casual play can be done in a way that imbalances are less critical, ie just not caring and forging a narrative as GW intends, but when you are looking for a balanced and more competitive game it is a nightmare. I guess I lumped balanced and competitive, or equally matched games, with being "tournament" which is unfair. Its anyone looking for a balanced and "fair" game that really struggles casually and in pickup games.


I think needing to drop 80pts off is in the neighborhood, they still can be effective and become good options. Either way, say a 40pt price decrease in their base cost from Flight goes a long way towards making them a viable option, it needs to be a bit more but I'm definitely looking at what pricepoint they need to be at and in which of their upgrades compared to their chassis their affect on the game comes from. Speed is important, but I've seen Speed 6" MCs do quite a bit of damage and board control. But, the 145 point Daemon Prince Chassis is just not worth it, but it has potent upgrades which are often worth it in the end result. Basically the DP pays too much for its Chassis, and too little for its Flight and Psyker abilities. Master Levels on an MC or FMC are more valuable than Master Levels on a T3 2W Herald, yet have been priced the same. So, expect a significant resturcturing of how Daemon Princes are costed making multiple builds viable.

You are right, those changes to Summoning are a bit harsh. I'm reverting thier WC cost back to normal, except Sacrifice should be a WC2. Fixing Horrors and possible recosting or altering the 1-4 to a 1-2 for Heralds would greatly fix the WC batteries, as would the turn delayed capture or contest for objectives.


Thank you guys for your input, it is greatly appreciated and keep it coming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
While you aren't "there" yet, heres a first pass for what I'd do to Necrons:
-No Decurion. Use the CAD instead (removing the RP bonus might be enough, instead, though)
-I think Wraiths should go back to T4.
Not sure that anything else is necessary.

Just a rough first pass.

I'll take all suggestions where I can get them!

The +1 RP is the issue, not Decurian alone. No reason to get rid of the Detachment.

Wraiths at 40pts aren't bad, though T4 was probably better. They were T4 at 35pts and now are T5 at 40pts. I'm thinking T5 at 45pts may be best, but I'm not there yet, haha.

Thanks!

Another point - should probably be handled on a per-codex level, but not all factions should have access to all powers.

For instance, a Farseer who manifests Biomancy, or possibly even Pyromancy, is clearly deep down the Path of Damnation. Just doesn't seem right to allow that without some particularly nasty special rule.

Also, as for the casual-doesnt-care-as-much, that's mostly true. But a more balanced rules set would still be a good thing. Please oh please nerf my Eldar was what most casual Eldar players were saying when the new Dex came out, and its so out of whack it makes even casual play much worse. So perhaps write a balanced rules set to be used by both. Casual games can still houserule any restrictions that got in the way.

Bharring wrote:
Another point - should probably be handled on a per-codex level, but not all factions should have access to all powers.

For instance, a Farseer who manifests Biomancy, or possibly even Pyromancy, is clearly deep down the Path of Damnation. Just doesn't seem right to allow that without some particularly nasty special rule.

Also, as for the casual-doesnt-care-as-much, that's mostly true. But a more balanced rules set would still be a good thing. Please oh please nerf my Eldar was what most casual Eldar players were saying when the new Dex came out, and its so out of whack it makes even casual play much worse. So perhaps write a balanced rules set to be used by both. Casual games can still houserule any restrictions that got in the way.

I agree in a purely fluff capacity, but from a balance perspective opening the flood gates is better. At least I made it so everyone and their brother aren't summoning Daemon's, haha. And casual players more concerned about fluff will self impose that limit if it's important to them.

I agree, it's one reason why I've started this project.


PS: Addeda rule change about Flyers and zfMCs gaining cover saves while zooming or swooping.
Also, posted changes to Summoning. Increased WC cost of Sacrifice, and made the number of summoned Daemons variable. Still MSU, but slightly easier to dispatch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And here is the first draft of the C:SM Balance Errata. Please check it out and comment.

Thanks!

What about a change to limit the number of ICs that can join a unit? That would limit deathstar units significantly.

 greyknight12 wrote:
What about a change to limit the number of ICs that can join a unit? That would limit deathstar units significantly.

Good suggestion. If there was a limit, it'd be 2 ICs, 1 would be too restrictive, and with 2 most problems could still exist. I feel, that after my errata and balance fix most deathstars won't be nearly as scary as they were previously. I mean with this we've seen the basic GravStar, Screamerstar, take a solid hit. No more Driago/Severin Loth/Tigurious CentStars. I mean the best you could do would be a simple GoI with Tigerius and a Tanking Captain America Biker. No way they'll be getting any guaranteed Invisibility, maybe they would in 1/3 games with another Ultramarine Librarian rolling Telepaphy, but it pretty much has already dropped it to something manageable. ScreamerStar won't have better than a 3++ with Reroll 1s after I Errata the Grimiore to add a line "The Grimiore cannot be used to improve a unit's invulnerable save to better than a 3++, if a unit under the effect of the Grimiore is under an affect that would improve it's invulnerable save to better than a 3++ it is instead improved to a 3++." That makes Screamerstar strong, but vulnerable enough to no longer be broken. SeerStar really isn't what it used to be, and we have a hard limit to the 2+Rerollable problem with Fortune. Also, EJBs will most likely be 4+AS so no 2+AS. No DE shadowfield/fortune star, etc.

I think the changes should virtually eliminate most if not all of the night invulnerable stars, I mean Changing Allies for Battle Brothers stopped a lot of the Imperial Stars, Eldar and Dark Eldar no longer being Battle Brothers stopped more, No WWP DScythes, DE are no longer Eldar taxi service, Daemons lose 2++Rerollable, it keeps knocking more and more of the Stars down. And most of those, barring the EJB and Grimiore Fix are already done.

I'm a fan of something closer to the old Mob Rule, the current one is a massive handicap, convoluted, and involves so much unnecessary rolling. I was thinking about this...

Mob Rule: An Ork Mob may always choose to substitute the number of boyz in their Mob for their normal Leadership value. If the Mob numbers 10 or more the Mob has a Leadership value of 10 and on a failed morale or Pinning test suffers a d3 wounds at AP- allocated by the controlling player and counts as passing the Morale or Pinning Test.

Bosspole: A model with a Bosspole can chose to deal a Wound at AP- allocated by the controlling player to reroll a failed Morale or Pinning test.

Thats a lot better than the current one. However it is still FAIL LD, ROLL D3, ROLL 6+ SAV, ROLL 5+ FNP, and with extra steps if the pole is included. Thats largely the fault of the game at large though for adding so many damn rolls just to kill a 6pt model though!

As much as I hate increasing the wounds Orks take, I've got two suggestions that would increase the wounds suffered but also decrease time taken for the test. The first is to make the wounds AP6, so your not wasting time with saves on basic Orks. The other would be to replace the D3 with something like "recieve X auto-wounds at AP6 where X is how much they failed the test by" The worst they could suffer from shooting is 5 wounds which is in the realm of the current mob rule chart. The worst against melee is 10 (roll boxcars when needing snakeeyes) but some variant of "auto-pass in melee" could always be a thing.

But I digress, probably better to tackle this in the Orks turn for balancing.

 Dakkamite wrote:

I'm a fan of something closer to the old Mob Rule, the current one is a massive handicap, convoluted, and involves so much unnecessary rolling. I was thinking about this...

Mob Rule: An Ork Mob may always choose to substitute the number of boyz in their Mob for their normal Leadership value. If the Mob numbers 10 or more the Mob has a Leadership value of 10 and on a failed morale or Pinning test suffers a d3 wounds at AP- allocated by the controlling player and counts as passing the Morale or Pinning Test.

Bosspole: A model with a Bosspole can chose to deal a Wound at AP- allocated by the controlling player to reroll a failed Morale or Pinning test.

Thats a lot better than the current one. However it is still FAIL LD, ROLL D3, ROLL 6+ SAV, ROLL 5+ FNP, and with extra steps if the pole is included. Thats largely the fault of the game at large though for adding so many damn rolls just to kill a 6pt model though!

As much as I hate increasing the wounds Orks take, I've got two suggestions that would increase the wounds suffered but also decrease time taken for the test. The first is to make the wounds AP6, so your not wasting time with saves on basic Orks. The other would be to replace the D3 with something like "recieve X auto-wounds at AP6 where X is how much they failed the test by" The worst they could suffer from shooting is 5 wounds which is in the realm of the current mob rule chart. The worst against melee is 10 (roll boxcars when needing snakeeyes) but some variant of "auto-pass in melee" could always be a thing.

But I digress, probably better to tackle this in the Orks turn for balancing.

I meant to say they'd be AP6, I didn't intend the Orks to get an armor save against them to eliminate two steps of rolling to wound and rolling an armor save. Well, actually more than that as it eliminates random allocation as well!

Hey, the more I have to think about the better. Did you get a chance to check out the Space Marine Errata? The rough draft is up, and as the biggest codex it was a bit of work, haha.

I don't have much of substance to offer, so instead I'll wish you good luck, and pray for your continued sanity.

I do admire the amount of effort and your open-ness to feedback. Just remember that if you have a certain vision and design in mind, stick with it. That said, points like Peregrine's are good, as you want to avoid invalidating armies as much as possible and focus on balance and defining a role for each unit and book to fill. When you start debating the nitty gritty about 5pts difference or minor tradeoffs, you're close enough to balance that you can move on to bigger picture stuff and ask for play testing.

 Blacksails wrote:
I don't have much of substance to offer, so instead I'll wish you good luck, and pray for your continued sanity.

I do admire the amount of effort and your open-ness to feedback. Just remember that if you have a certain vision and design in mind, stick with it. That said, points like Peregrine's are good, as you want to avoid invalidating armies as much as possible and focus on balance and defining a role for each unit and book to fill. When you start debating the nitty gritty about 5pts difference or minor tradeoffs, you're close enough to balance that you can move on to bigger picture stuff and ask for play testing.

Haha, thank you. All feedback is welcome. And I will definitely need feedback for certain armies, especially those I done or haven't owned and play rarely. I feel if we pool our collective knowledge,approach the situ and logically and with solid reasoning we could iron out 80% of the current game/codices imbalance. The more variety and relative balance in the game the more people enjoy themselves. I mean, who didn't grow tired of hearing Necron and seeing a cookie cutter Wraithwingteslacrons army across the table, or Serpent spam. The more viable units and the smaller the power game, the possibilities grow almost exponentially what we can experience on the table.

I see his point, but want to focus on the Codices themselves, and if it goes well open it up to SH/GC LoWs and Forgeworld stuff to add to the mix.

Just trying to get out a usable fix for the main codices that would yield a more balanced, competitive, and fun framework for people to play. Starting with a narrower focus feels right, too broad and one will go crazy!

I welcome you to check out the C:SM Errata, I have a rough draft complete.

 Zagman wrote:


I meant to say they'd be AP6, I didn't intend the Orks to get an armor save against them to eliminate two steps of rolling to wound and rolling an armor save. Well, actually more than that as it eliminates random allocation as well!

Hey, the more I have to think about the better. Did you get a chance to check out the Space Marine Errata? The rough draft is up, and as the biggest codex it was a bit of work, haha.

Yeah I hadn't even considered random allocation. Wtf were they thinking, thats the most impractical piece of ruling I've seen in the entire game.

I don't know SM that well and am posting largely from a rough knowledge of how the game worked *last* edition (only just re-entered 7th in the last few weeks), so it's probably better if I constrain my comments largely to the one dex I somewhat understand. I do like the points decrease on terminators though, with so much AP2 blast flying about they were way overcosted before

I feel if we pool our collective knowledge,approach the situ and logically and with solid reasoning we could iron out 80% of the current game/codices imbalance.

The Pareto principle tells us that in a lot of cases, 80% of effects stem from 20% of sources. If we can fix the top 20% of issues then that 80% of fixing can likely be accomplished.

Edit #2: Wondering what the overall goal here is. Are you trying to fix the game completely within the established ruleset? Tweak a few rules and then mostly rely on points changes? Or are the rules themselves, such as how flyers etc work, rolling for warlord traits, and all sorts of other buggy crap this game has on the chopping board too?

 Dakkamite wrote:

 Zagman wrote:


I meant to say they'd be AP6, I didn't intend the Orks to get an armor save against them to eliminate two steps of rolling to wound and rolling an armor save. Well, actually more than that as it eliminates random allocation as well!

Hey, the more I have to think about the better. Did you get a chance to check out the Space Marine Errata? The rough draft is up, and as the biggest codex it was a bit of work, haha.

Yeah I hadn't even considered random allocation. Wtf were they thinking, thats the most impractical piece of ruling I've seen in the entire game.

I don't know SM that well and am posting largely from a rough knowledge of how the game worked *last* edition (only just re-entered 7th in the last few weeks), so it's probably better if I constrain my comments largely to the one dex I somewhat understand. I do like the points decrease on terminators though, with so much AP2 blast flying about they were way overcosted before

I feel if we pool our collective knowledge,approach the situ and logically and with solid reasoning we could iron out 80% of the current game/codices imbalance.

The Pareto principle tells us that in a lot of cases, 80% of effects stem from 20% of sources. If we can fix the top 20% of issues then that 80% of fixing can likely be accomplished.

Edit #2: Wondering what the overall goal here is. Are you trying to fix the game completely within the established ruleset? Tweak a few rules and then mostly rely on points changes? Or are the rules themselves, such as how flyers etc work, rolling for warlord traits, and all sorts of other buggy crap this game has on the chopping board too?

It definitely was one of their worst and logistically terrible rules ever implemented. Terrible. I feel like the change to Mob Rule reall brings Orks up a couple of notches.

I had taken a few month hiatus recently, waiting for the new Eldar Dex to hopefully fix them. I was excited with the reasonable balanced codices that were the first six or so of 7th... Then Eldar happened. It's utter garbage.

My goal is to rewrite as few rules as necessary. I don't want to rewrite the rule set where a simple points adjustment would suffice. Some things had to be addressed, ie 2++ Rerollable, Invisibility, and Battle Brothers.

I think you are right about the 20%, fix the bottom 10% and the top 10% and reach an 80% improvement.

I appreciate the feedback, keep the Ork suggestions coming, I'll gladly look at them and definitely take them to heart, I don't play Orks myself, most of my familiarity came from the old Dex, and preparing for them in a tournament setting, haha!

Kooai's in-progress Ork fandex is a good place to look. [http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/646620.page]

I'm more familiar with the old dex too, but I can say the points adjustments make a whole lot of sense.

It does make a few more drastic changes than this project would entail (or does it? take a look at changes to Ghazghull, Lootas, Orkanaughts etc and see what you think), but I reckon by focusing on the points adjustments we can get you halfway towards a completed faction errata pretty easy

I don't think that access to every rulebook psy discipline for everyone is a correct thing purely from ballancing perspective. Imagine a greentide that's gona be in charge range by turn 2 if you get a levitate power off. It's allready quite powerful with mellee-oriented ig that wreck face thanks to inquisitors but are not too durable. GT is way more durable, doesn't rely on psy-buffs so much.

Also, rerollable 2+ is not nearly as bad as it used to be in 6-th. The game itself has changed. Previously, investing 1000 pt in a deathstar + support was fine, now you can get 10+ obsec units for the same cost that would simply out-score the unkillable deathstar. Psy powers are less reliable too.

Summoning is fine as is. It's good but not OTT when you consider how many points you spend on pure WC generation and how risky 3 WC powers are.

I also disapprove of nerfing allies. Yep, i know, many people hate it and i play orks myself, so don't have any battlebrothers but i think that the ability to mix armies is actually good. Daemons + CSM, Inquisition + IG - that's exactly how it should be. Another question is that there are odd alliances like eldar + de being bff and SW hanging out with Inquisitors. That's what should be changed, imo.

I also don't think that prohibiting SH and GMC in games below 2k is right. There are lots of well-priced SH like Baneblades, SM SH flyer, a Stompa, after all. The problem comes from OP and spammable SH and GMC like Wraithknights that are severely underpriced - IMO there shouldn't be ranged S: D on anything below 500 pts, IK that are somewhat underpriced and spammable, etc. IMO, we should focus on nerfing the broken superheavies and buffing the underpowered ones like Malcador the Defender rather than restricting them alltogether.

Same with FMC and Flyers.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Kooai's in-progress Ork fandex is a good place to look. [http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/646620.page]

I'm more familiar with the old dex too, but I can say the points adjustments make a whole lot of sense.

It does make a few more drastic changes than this project would entail (or does it? take a look at changes to Ghazghull, Lootas, Orkanaughts etc and see what you think), but I reckon by focusing on the points adjustments we can get you halfway towards a completed faction errata pretty easy

I took a quick look, but it does appear to be much more drastic changes than I'm looking for, but I'm definitely going to take its conclusions to heart when I go through mine. There is good discussion about why things need to change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
I don't think that access to every rulebook psy discipline for everyone is a correct thing purely from ballancing perspective. Imagine a greentide that's gona be in charge range by turn 2 if you get a levitate power off. It's allready quite powerful with mellee-oriented ig that wreck face thanks to inquisitors but are not too durable. GT is way more durable, doesn't rely on psy-buffs so much.

Also, rerollable 2+ is not nearly as bad as it used to be in 6-th. The game itself has changed. Previously, investing 1000 pt in a deathstar + support was fine, now you can get 10+ obsec units for the same cost that would simply out-score the unkillable deathstar. Psy powers are less reliable too.

Summoning is fine as is. It's good but not OTT when you consider how many points you spend on pure WC generation and how risky 3 WC powers are.

I also disapprove of nerfing allies. Yep, i know, many people hate it and i play orks myself, so don't have any battlebrothers but i think that the ability to mix armies is actually good. Daemons + CSM, Inquisition + IG - that's exactly how it should be. Another question is that there are odd alliances like eldar + de being bff and SW hanging out with Inquisitors. That's what should be changed, imo.

I also don't think that prohibiting SH and GMC in games below 2k is right. There are lots of well-priced SH like Baneblades, SM SH flyer, a Stompa, after all. The problem comes from OP and spammable SH and GMC like Wraithknights that are severely underpriced - IMO there shouldn't be ranged S: D on anything below 500 pts, IK that are somewhat underpriced and spammable, etc. IMO, we should focus on nerfing the broken superheavies and buffing the underpowered ones like Malcador the Defender rather than restricting them alltogether.

Same with FMC and Flyers.

Psychic assess for all.... I'm definitely willing to hear arguments for why this should change. Sure, a single Massive Greentide will be able to charge Turn 2, and it requires purchasing a Wierdboy, choosing Telekinesis, rolling the correct power, successfully casting that power, and not getting denied... for one unit. I don't see a problem with that. I'm more concerned about Divination and Twinlinked Orks with 4++, or Worse Invisible Greentide, but even that isn't terrible, I'd call it balanced actually. There are strategies for handling the Greentide... and if the Meta could swing away from its current imbalance we'd see a greater ability to hand that kind of problem. And there are single models which can tie up a Greentide for a long long while, especially when attacking it from multiple angles. Anyway, with one Wierdboy you have a 2/3 chance of not getting the power, with two you still have a 4/9 chance of not getting any particular power as well, even with three you have an 8/27ths chance of not getting the power you want, so even with three Wierdboyz you don't have the power you want 30% of the time. Factor in needing the Power to be a success first turn, a chance to Deny, etc.

2+/++ Rerollable isn't nearly as bad, but it is still bad, its still broken and should be fixed. Saying, "Well now we have Malestrom" is not a defense for unkillable deathstars, they are still unbalanced. Just because the Meta, or in a specific mission format they can sometimes be countered is not good justification. We lose absolutely nothing by fixing the Uber Psychic deathstars except a more enjoyable and balanced game experience for all.

Summoning is a bad game mechanic that was poorly implemented in the first place, generating additional units is difficult to balance. The biggest offender was Sacrifice, a WC1 power that cost you a horror and got you a Herald increasing your WC generation was iffy. All I did is increase the WC Cost of Sacrifice and slightly reduced the average number of models generated. Summoning still functions mostly like it did before. When Daemons come around, fixing Horrors is really the solution. This is not a major nerf to Summoning, but does tone it down and is likely to be a supplemental mechanic.

Part of me loves the idea of Allies, but they are incredibly difficult to balance due to unrestrained synergy. Some armies, ie Orks have no Battle Brothers wherease the IoM has many, and that greatly increased the potential synergy that can be put on the table, it also drasticly increases the frequency of broken and unforseen combinations like the WWP Wraithscythe, or the Driago/LothCentStar. Now, my allies modification may need some tweaking with Inquisition etc, but will greatly reduce unintended rules interactions For instance, GravCents are just fine... until they get access to dirt cheap BB Drop Pods... it is those kinds of interactions that really throw a wrench in balance.

I'm not opposed to changing my initial rulings on SH/GCs, but currently this project is going to be much more manageable with SH/GC(Minus codex ones) out of the picture, and they can easily be rebalanced and brought back in later or as I've said multiple times as an addition to this Balance Errata. Flyers pose a balancing problem without tearing into their core rules. They generally require specialty counters which are not cost effective nor widespread, and the ability to spam them really makes balance difficult. Sure, increasing poitns costs is an option, but then a single Flyer/FMC or two becomes underpowerd. Right now, at least untl the reas of the Errata are complete, limiting Flyers and FMCs to a moderate amount makes balance so much easier without a core rules rewrite,something beyond the scope of this project.








Just added my Codex: Eldar Craftworlds Balance Errata, check it out and let me know what you think! I even buffed the Eldar in many places, and reigned them in where it really counted so the codex should be much more interanlly and externally balanced offering a wider array of viable options and army builds.

C:Space Marine Balance Errata
C:Eldar Craftworlds Balance Errata

I was wondering, is there any reason at all to start changing how the rules work?
It would seem to me, that everything can be achieved solely through balancing the costs of units and equipment. Or are there instances where point adjustments simply won't cut it?
It doesn't have to be "simple" adjustments, a more complicated system can be worked out to take combinations into account such as "Tigurius costs x points more in an army that includes z Devastator Centurions".
Could such a (relatively) simple system work?

neogeo wrote:
I was wondering, is there any reason at all to start changing how the rules work?
It would seem to me, that everything can be achieved solely through balancing the costs of units and equipment. Or are there instances where point adjustments simply won't cut it?
It doesn't have to be "simple" adjustments, a more complicated system can be worked out to take combinations into account such as "Tigurius costs x points more in an army that includes z Devastator Centurions".
Could such a (relatively) simple system work?

Very good question and one I thought hard about. Some of the rules allow for synergies or being potential problems that make balance extremely problematic. For instance, Invisibility. We could increase the cost of all Psykers to compensate for the chance of them having Invisibility, or we can alter the power to be more inline with other Psychic options.

A synergy example is Flyers, we can take perfectly balanced Flyers and FMCs, but due to the relative I access to Skyfire the ability to spam perfectly balanced Flyers and afMcs become quite imbalanced. Actually, it's why Nids could be competitive with Oentarant, take a balanced zfMC and spam it to create a competitive list to keep up with the other overpowered or overly synergistic combinations. Allies definitely cause those sorts of problems, a codex can be well balanced but when the options of many other Battle Brothers are brought into the mix combinations create imbalance.

My conclusion was the fewest sweeping rules changes required combined with codex level balancing primarily through points.

Great question.

Does this mean I get my super Iron Arm Warp Speed and Endurance Swarmlord back again?

Poor boy's been sitting unused for aeons outside of homebrew games or using the /tg/ edition Tyranid Codex.

 Kain wrote:
Does this mean I get my super Iron Arm Warp Speed and Endurance Swarmlord back again?

Poor boy's been sitting unused for aeons outside of homebrew games or using the /tg/ edition Tyranid Codex.

Haha, yes it does mean that he could hit the table again, assuming you roll the right powers.

 Zagman wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Does this mean I get my super Iron Arm Warp Speed and Endurance Swarmlord back again?

Poor boy's been sitting unused for aeons outside of homebrew games or using the /tg/ edition Tyranid Codex.

Haha, yes it does mean that he could hit the table again, assuming you roll the right powers.

I wonder if the feeling of dissapointment amongst Dwarf fans was as severe as Swarmlord users upon seeing the 6e codex when they finally got their big bad incarnate...who was a total and absolute pansy next to Nagash, Malekith and Sigmar/Karl Franz.

Though I suppose even warp-speed doesn't solve the crucial issue of the swarmlord being slow and only having a 3+ armor save with no invulnerables against shooting unless you're willing to blow a fourth power on him.

 Kain wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Does this mean I get my super Iron Arm Warp Speed and Endurance Swarmlord back again?

Poor boy's been sitting unused for aeons outside of homebrew games or using the /tg/ edition Tyranid Codex.

Haha, yes it does mean that he could hit the table again, assuming you roll the right powers.

I wonder if the feeling of dissapointment amongst Dwarf fans was as severe as Swarmlord users upon seeing the 6e codex when they finally got their big bad incarnate...who was a total and absolute pansy next to Nagash, Malekith and Sigmar/Karl Franz.

Though I suppose even warp-speed doesn't solve the crucial issue of the swarmlord being slow and only having a 3+ armor save with no invulnerables against shooting unless you're willing to blow a fourth power on him.

There is a history of people being disappointed when their army book or codex comes out and their fabled character is terrible rules wise. I mean, remember Dante? Haha.

It doesn't some Hume only having a 3++ and being slow. As he is a T6 3+ chassis he'll probably see a 20pt or so decrease in cost when I get around to the Nid Dex.

Did you get a chance to look at my Soace Marine or Eldar epbalance errata?







Edit: Added the Necron Balance Errata. I'm thinking to limit thread counts I'm going to group Codices.

Space Marines, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, and Grey Knights
AM, Inquisition, Adeptus Mechanicus, Assassins, Sister of Battle
Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins
Necron
Tau
Orks
CSM, Daemons, Daemonkin

5-18-15 Removed

Flyers and FMCs: Only one Flyer or FMC per full 500pts in the list.

Super Heavies and Gargantuan Monsterous Creatures: SH/GCs are prohibited under 2000pts. One SH/GC per full 2000pts and an additional one for each full 500pts thereafter.

*Yes, this is very prohibitive of LoWs currently, for balance purposes they are very limited in availability for armies and have wildly varying power levels requiring detailed fix/ban lists. I believe it is easier to balance 40k without them, once balanced a separate Errata could be added for SH/GC LoWs.

5-18-15 Added

These Errata are meant to be used with Codices and specifically mentioned Supplements and may not function well with Supplements not covered, Forgeworld, or Apocalypse SHs and GCs. There exists a plethora of "Legal" 40k content that is beyond the scope of this Balance Errata.