I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
I'm not sure these 'older' players are the main shoppers anymore. 7th actually saw an expansion of the playerbase and, if tournament attendance is anything to go by, 8th is the golden age of expansionism. That expansion has been built off the back of an allies matrix. Custodes bring Psykers and Assassins, Space Marines work with Imperial Guard, Chaos Space Marines are frequently half Codex-Daemons, e.t.c. If you took away allies, I don't think the response of most of those people will be "well, better flesh out each faction". They'd at least be as likely to just ebay the thing and go find something else (even Age of Sigmar which would be less restrictive by that point).
I wasn't trying to suggest older players were the largest proportion, just that the game was once "Mono-Faction" only and so we KNOW it can work that way. And yes, there would be some players put off by this change, as with any change, but I don't think it would be as large a group as you might think. It isn't as if Mathced play is the ONLY way. The most common, sure, but just like I can still run an Eldar list with Windriders as my core (like when they were my only Troops) mulit-faction list will still be playable in either Open or Narrative play or even in Matched play games in which both players agree to ignore the restriction.
What the restriction will do, however, is shift the balance between the "haves" and "have nots" in terms of faction taking allies to plug weaknesses that absolutely should be present in a competitive setting. Just to clarify, I'm not advocating for this change, just saying it wouldn't be a bad one. There are certainly better ways, but this would be an easy "fix"
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
Audustum said a lot of things were guesswork. That was part of the point of Audustum's post. We don't know how a lot of things would go and you may kill the reemergent scene.
I'm not sure these 'older' players are the main shoppers anymore. 7th actually saw an expansion of the playerbase and, if tournament attendance is anything to go by, 8th is the golden age of expansionism. That expansion has been built off the back of an allies matrix. Custodes bring Psykers and Assassins, Space Marines work with Imperial Guard, Chaos Space Marines are frequently half Codex-Daemons, e.t.c. If you took away allies, I don't think the response of most of those people will be "well, better flesh out each faction". They'd at least be as likely to just ebay the thing and go find something else (even Age of Sigmar which would be less restrictive by that point).
I wasn't trying to suggest older players were the largest proportion, just that the game was once "Mono-Faction" only and so we KNOW it can work that way.
And yes, there would be some players put off by this change, as with any change, but I don't think it would be as large a group as you might think.
It isn't as if Mathced play is the ONLY way. The most common, sure, but just like I can still run an Eldar list with Windriders as my core (like when they were my only Troops) mulit-faction list will still be playable in either Open or Narrative play or even in Matched play games in which both players agree to ignore the restriction.
What the restriction will do, however, is shift the balance between the "haves" and "have nots" in terms of faction taking allies to plug weaknesses that absolutely should be present in a competitive setting.
Just to clarify, I'm not advocating for this change, just saying it wouldn't be a bad one. There are certainly better ways, but this would be an easy "fix"
-
I think anything that takes away 'fun factors' even if it produces balance should probably be classified as a 'bad' decision. Narrative and Open exist, but there's a reason just about every forum/gathering of the playerbase considers them a joke. Matched Play is the de facto standard.
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
Audustum said a lot of things were guesswork. That was part of the point of Audustum's post. We don't know how a lot of things would go and you may kill the reemergent scene.
Or it might work awesomely! We don't know, your position is no stronger here.
If we just stuck to the cold hard facts this forum would be an empty place.
I think anything that takes away 'fun factors' even if it produces balance should probably be classified as a 'bad' decision. Narrative and Open exist, but there's a reason just about every forum/gathering of the playerbase considers them a joke. Matched Play is the de facto standard.
What about something that increases the 'fun factor' but reduces balance? Is that fine then, indefinitely?
I don't think you believe that. So maybe the optimum point is somewhere a little more balanced than where we are even if it does remove down fluffy options FOR MATCHED PLAY.
The general consensus seems to be we are on the wrong side of balanced. Removing some options may be necessary to remedy that.
Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.
I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.
Let's put it this way, easy =/= right.
Sure, it's easier to balance fewer moving parts. It's also easier to balance if we remove CP and stratagems entirely. Those are fun gameplay elements, however. People like 'playing abilities' and they like customizing forces from wider options. The preference should always be towards preserving fun elements while balancing than to balance at the expense of popular items.
limitations are fun too. Otherwise we may as well just all be playing unbound. It would be cool if tournaments were faction v faction. It would also make balance a gakload easier to get tighter going forward, as trying to balance 10 factions as a single entity while adding to that number as they progress, is a losing battle.
Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.
I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.
Let's put it this way, easy =/= right.
Sure, it's easier to balance fewer moving parts. It's also easier to balance if we remove CP and stratagems entirely. Those are fun gameplay elements, however. People like 'playing abilities' and they like customizing forces from wider options. The preference should always be towards preserving fun elements while balancing than to balance at the expense of popular items.
limitations are fun too. Otherwise we may as well just all be playing unbound. It would be cool if tournaments were faction v faction. It would also make balance a gakload easier to get tighter going forward, as trying to balance 10 factions as a single entity while adding to that number as they progress, is a losing battle.
This is a massive strawman. No one said limitations aren't fun. The point was just allies and stratagems are popular. You can have a very balanced game that absolutely no one wants to play because it's boring. There's absolutely no reason it can't be both fun and balanced, however.
Not to mention we're not talking full factions entirely either. Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Imperial Knights, Legion, even Custodes, these are not fully fleshed out factions.
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
Audustum said a lot of things were guesswork. That was part of the point of Audustum's post. We don't know how a lot of things would go and you may kill the reemergent scene.
Or it might work awesomely! We don't know, your position is no stronger here.
If we just stuck to the cold hard facts this forum would be an empty place.
I think anything that takes away 'fun factors' even if it produces balance should probably be classified as a 'bad' decision. Narrative and Open exist, but there's a reason just about every forum/gathering of the playerbase considers them a joke. Matched Play is the de facto standard.
What about something that increases the 'fun factor' but reduces balance? Is that fine then, indefinitely?
I don't think you believe that. So maybe the optimum point is somewhere a little more balanced than where we are even if it does remove down fluffy options FOR MATCHED PLAY.
The general consensus seems to be we are on the wrong side of balanced. Removing some options may be necessary to remedy that.
You're right, it might work awesomely, but considering these were part of the big three changes (the third being the simplified ruleset) my instinct is to doubt it. When you market based on something, it's not illogical to attribute an upswing in popularity to that marketing.
You're also making a strawman here. No one said fun was greater than all else. It was said that GW should work to make balance while preserving fun elements. That's a night and day difference.
Every faction has, in theory, weaknesses that can be exploited. When you start mixing factions, those weaknesses can be mitigated. The main offense to mixing factions in tournaments is that not every faction can do so. Non-Aeldari Xenos factions, for example, have little to no way to mitigate their inherent faction weaknesses by adding another faction.
Competition should always be fair. Either restrict all armies the same (mono-faction) or allow all factions to mix. That is the most fair way to go about it. Alternatively (And more preferably), reduce the advantages of mixing factions so that there isn't such disparity between those that can do it and those that cannot
Galef wrote: Every faction has, in theory, weaknesses that can be exploited. When you start mixing factions, those weaknesses can be mitigated.
The main offense to mixing factions in tournaments is that not every faction can do so. Non-Aeldari Xenos factions, for example, have little to no way to mitigate their inherent faction weaknesses by adding another faction.
Competition should always be fair. Either restrict all armies the same (mon-faction) or allow all factions to mix. That is the most fair way to go about it.
Alternatively, reduce that advantages of mixing factions so that there isn't such disparity between those that can do it and those that cannot
-
I agree the allies need work. I'd much rather just open things up so that the more 'isolated' factions can ally more liberally. Tau have lots of converts, for example, let them bring Guard, Renegades, even some Space Marines and Eldar.
Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.
I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.
Let's put it this way, easy =/= right.
Sure, it's easier to balance fewer moving parts. It's also easier to balance if we remove CP and stratagems entirely. Those are fun gameplay elements, however. People like 'playing abilities' and they like customizing forces from wider options. The preference should always be towards preserving fun elements while balancing than to balance at the expense of popular items.
limitations are fun too. Otherwise we may as well just all be playing unbound. It would be cool if tournaments were faction v faction. It would also make balance a gakload easier to get tighter going forward, as trying to balance 10 factions as a single entity while adding to that number as they progress, is a losing battle.
This is a massive strawman. No one said limitations aren't fun. The point was just allies and stratagems are popular. You can have a very balanced game that absolutely no one wants to play because it's boring. There's absolutely no reason it can't be both fun and balanced, however.
Not to mention we're not talking full factions entirely either. Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Imperial Knights, Legion, even Custodes, these are not fully fleshed out factions.
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
Audustum said a lot of things were guesswork. That was part of the point of Audustum's post. We don't know how a lot of things would go and you may kill the reemergent scene.
Or it might work awesomely! We don't know, your position is no stronger here.
If we just stuck to the cold hard facts this forum would be an empty place.
I think anything that takes away 'fun factors' even if it produces balance should probably be classified as a 'bad' decision. Narrative and Open exist, but there's a reason just about every forum/gathering of the playerbase considers them a joke. Matched Play is the de facto standard.
What about something that increases the 'fun factor' but reduces balance? Is that fine then, indefinitely?
I don't think you believe that. So maybe the optimum point is somewhere a little more balanced than where we are even if it does remove down fluffy options FOR MATCHED PLAY.
The general consensus seems to be we are on the wrong side of balanced. Removing some options may be necessary to remedy that.
You're right, it might work awesomely, but considering these were part of the big three changes (the third being the simplified ruleset) my instinct is to doubt it. When you market based on something, it's not illogical to attribute an upswing in popularity to that marketing.
You're also making a strawman here. No one said fun was greater than all else. It was said that GW should work to make balance while preserving fun elements. That's a night and day difference.
The point I'm making though is that if we want significantly better balance then some sacrifices may need to be made on some things people find fun.
You made it sound like this was a line in the sand for you, that nothing that could be considered fun was on the table for balance purposes.
Galef wrote: The only issue with players balancing the game is that they always have a bias, whether it be for their own army, or an army they'd like to see more often.
Each player's local meta will play a big role as well.
Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.
I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.
Let's put it this way, easy =/= right.
Sure, it's easier to balance fewer moving parts. It's also easier to balance if we remove CP and stratagems entirely. Those are fun gameplay elements, however. People like 'playing abilities' and they like customizing forces from wider options. The preference should always be towards preserving fun elements while balancing than to balance at the expense of popular items.
limitations are fun too. Otherwise we may as well just all be playing unbound. It would be cool if tournaments were faction v faction. It would also make balance a gakload easier to get tighter going forward, as trying to balance 10 factions as a single entity while adding to that number as they progress, is a losing battle.
This is a massive strawman. No one said limitations aren't fun. The point was just allies and stratagems are popular. You can have a very balanced game that absolutely no one wants to play because it's boring. There's absolutely no reason it can't be both fun and balanced, however.
Not to mention we're not talking full factions entirely either. Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Imperial Knights, Legion, even Custodes, these are not fully fleshed out factions.
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
Audustum said a lot of things were guesswork. That was part of the point of Audustum's post. We don't know how a lot of things would go and you may kill the reemergent scene.
Or it might work awesomely! We don't know, your position is no stronger here.
If we just stuck to the cold hard facts this forum would be an empty place.
I think anything that takes away 'fun factors' even if it produces balance should probably be classified as a 'bad' decision. Narrative and Open exist, but there's a reason just about every forum/gathering of the playerbase considers them a joke. Matched Play is the de facto standard.
What about something that increases the 'fun factor' but reduces balance? Is that fine then, indefinitely?
I don't think you believe that. So maybe the optimum point is somewhere a little more balanced than where we are even if it does remove down fluffy options FOR MATCHED PLAY.
The general consensus seems to be we are on the wrong side of balanced. Removing some options may be necessary to remedy that.
You're right, it might work awesomely, but considering these were part of the big three changes (the third being the simplified ruleset) my instinct is to doubt it. When you market based on something, it's not illogical to attribute an upswing in popularity to that marketing.
You're also making a strawman here. No one said fun was greater than all else. It was said that GW should work to make balance while preserving fun elements. That's a night and day difference.
The point I'm making though is that if we want significantly better balance then some sacrifices may need to be made on some things people find fun.
You made it sound like this was a line in the sand for you, that nothing that could be considered fun was on the table for balance purposes.
Let's put it this way, I was saying it's just good game design that you should balance while preserving fun instead of stripping it off. This isn't rocket science, you can easily keep one while doing the other. Lots of companies do.
Tyel wrote: GW have three objectives.
1. Have a game which is fun to play.
2. Have a game where units "feel" like the fluff.
3. Have a game which is "balanced" when played competitively.
Their beta changes have principally been about the first. Maybe there was variety in first turn deep strike - but it was awful for the game. Spam lists are the same deal.
GW only has one objective... selling models which makes money for the company. Any other concerns, like a tabletop game, are very far down the list.
Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.
I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.
Let's put it this way, easy =/= right.
Sure, it's easier to balance fewer moving parts. It's also easier to balance if we remove CP and stratagems entirely. Those are fun gameplay elements, however. People like 'playing abilities' and they like customizing forces from wider options. The preference should always be towards preserving fun elements while balancing than to balance at the expense of popular items.
limitations are fun too. Otherwise we may as well just all be playing unbound. It would be cool if tournaments were faction v faction. It would also make balance a gakload easier to get tighter going forward, as trying to balance 10 factions as a single entity while adding to that number as they progress, is a losing battle.
This is a massive strawman. No one said limitations aren't fun. The point was just allies and stratagems are popular. You can have a very balanced game that absolutely no one wants to play because it's boring. There's absolutely no reason it can't be both fun and balanced, however.
Not to mention we're not talking full factions entirely either. Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Imperial Knights, Legion, even Custodes, these are not fully fleshed out factions.
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
Audustum said a lot of things were guesswork. That was part of the point of Audustum's post. We don't know how a lot of things would go and you may kill the reemergent scene.
Or it might work awesomely! We don't know, your position is no stronger here.
If we just stuck to the cold hard facts this forum would be an empty place.
I think anything that takes away 'fun factors' even if it produces balance should probably be classified as a 'bad' decision. Narrative and Open exist, but there's a reason just about every forum/gathering of the playerbase considers them a joke. Matched Play is the de facto standard.
What about something that increases the 'fun factor' but reduces balance? Is that fine then, indefinitely?
I don't think you believe that. So maybe the optimum point is somewhere a little more balanced than where we are even if it does remove down fluffy options FOR MATCHED PLAY.
The general consensus seems to be we are on the wrong side of balanced. Removing some options may be necessary to remedy that.
You're right, it might work awesomely, but considering these were part of the big three changes (the third being the simplified ruleset) my instinct is to doubt it. When you market based on something, it's not illogical to attribute an upswing in popularity to that marketing.
You're also making a strawman here. No one said fun was greater than all else. It was said that GW should work to make balance while preserving fun elements. That's a night and day difference.
The point I'm making though is that if we want significantly better balance then some sacrifices may need to be made on some things people find fun.
You made it sound like this was a line in the sand for you, that nothing that could be considered fun was on the table for balance purposes.
Let's put it this way, I was saying it's just good game design that you should balance while preserving fun instead of stripping it off. This isn't rocket science, you can easily keep one while doing the other. Lots of companies do.
In the abstract sure. But we're talking about a specific example. You also have to consider that there are people who view soup as unfun, as well as those who view it fun.
Yes, removing it will remove something some people find fun. But it might make the game as a whole more fun overall by virtue of improving balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Basically fun is a poor metric here, hah
Tyel wrote: GW have three objectives.
1. Have a game which is fun to play.
2. Have a game where units "feel" like the fluff.
3. Have a game which is "balanced" when played competitively.
Their beta changes have principally been about the first. Maybe there was variety in first turn deep strike - but it was awful for the game. Spam lists are the same deal.
GW only has one objective... selling models which makes money for the company. Any other concerns, like a tabletop game, are very far down the list.
SG
I don't believe you. If this was true, I believe that they wouldn't have came out with 8th edition, or with all the FAQ's or with all the errata, or with actually being somewhat communicative to the player base.
While what your saying has been true, at this I feel your doing a disservice to them.
Casual will never suffer at the expense of a good match play rules set. If it creates balance - it's good for all game types to use it. Casual suffers the most from a badly balanced rules set - because the players don't pick their units based on power. They pick based on what they like. So if your friend likes shinning spears and you like tactical marines - you will lose 100% of games. Not cool.
I used to believe this but Dakka has convinced me otherwise. Look at this thread, half the people just want to ban stuff and remove options. I rather do without that sort of 'balance.'
Tyel wrote: GW have three objectives.
1. Have a game which is fun to play.
2. Have a game where units "feel" like the fluff.
3. Have a game which is "balanced" when played competitively.
Their beta changes have principally been about the first. Maybe there was variety in first turn deep strike - but it was awful for the game. Spam lists are the same deal.
GW only has one objective... selling models which makes money for the company. Any other concerns, like a tabletop game, are very far down the list.
SG
I don't believe you. If this was true, I believe that they wouldn't have came out with 8th edition, or with all the FAQ's or with all the errata, or with actually being somewhat communicative to the player base.
While what your saying has been true, at this I feel your doing a disservice to them.
As a company this is true.
The individuals working on the game truly care about it though.
Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.
I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.
Let's put it this way, easy =/= right.
Sure, it's easier to balance fewer moving parts. It's also easier to balance if we remove CP and stratagems entirely. Those are fun gameplay elements, however. People like 'playing abilities' and they like customizing forces from wider options. The preference should always be towards preserving fun elements while balancing than to balance at the expense of popular items.
limitations are fun too. Otherwise we may as well just all be playing unbound. It would be cool if tournaments were faction v faction. It would also make balance a gakload easier to get tighter going forward, as trying to balance 10 factions as a single entity while adding to that number as they progress, is a losing battle.
This is a massive strawman. No one said limitations aren't fun. The point was just allies and stratagems are popular. You can have a very balanced game that absolutely no one wants to play because it's boring. There's absolutely no reason it can't be both fun and balanced, however.
Not to mention we're not talking full factions entirely either. Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Imperial Knights, Legion, even Custodes, these are not fully fleshed out factions.
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
Audustum said a lot of things were guesswork. That was part of the point of Audustum's post. We don't know how a lot of things would go and you may kill the reemergent scene.
Or it might work awesomely! We don't know, your position is no stronger here.
If we just stuck to the cold hard facts this forum would be an empty place.
I think anything that takes away 'fun factors' even if it produces balance should probably be classified as a 'bad' decision. Narrative and Open exist, but there's a reason just about every forum/gathering of the playerbase considers them a joke. Matched Play is the de facto standard.
What about something that increases the 'fun factor' but reduces balance? Is that fine then, indefinitely?
I don't think you believe that. So maybe the optimum point is somewhere a little more balanced than where we are even if it does remove down fluffy options FOR MATCHED PLAY.
The general consensus seems to be we are on the wrong side of balanced. Removing some options may be necessary to remedy that.
You're right, it might work awesomely, but considering these were part of the big three changes (the third being the simplified ruleset) my instinct is to doubt it. When you market based on something, it's not illogical to attribute an upswing in popularity to that marketing.
You're also making a strawman here. No one said fun was greater than all else. It was said that GW should work to make balance while preserving fun elements. That's a night and day difference.
The point I'm making though is that if we want significantly better balance then some sacrifices may need to be made on some things people find fun.
You made it sound like this was a line in the sand for you, that nothing that could be considered fun was on the table for balance purposes.
Let's put it this way, I was saying it's just good game design that you should balance while preserving fun instead of stripping it off. This isn't rocket science, you can easily keep one while doing the other. Lots of companies do.
In the abstract sure. But we're talking about a specific example. You also have to consider that there are people who view soup as unfun, as well as those who view it fun.
Yes, removing it will remove something some people find fun. But it might make the game as a whole more fun overall by virtue of improving balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Basically fun is a poor metric here, hah
The 'specific example' isn't actually that specific. "40k in 8th Edition is unbalanced, how do we fix it?" is the general topic. Some have proposed removing allies, but no basis why that is necessary or the only option is offered.
'Fun' may be a poor metric, but it's ultimately what sells models, aside from those who are pure hobbyists and not players. So it's one we need to consider very heavily. While some people find 'allies' unfun, GW basically settled that debate in 6th Edition. They wouldn't have been reiterated so many times if they weren't helping the company.
AnomanderRake wrote: (Back in the days of "only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit" there were no tank squadrons, superheavies, or flyers, you were hard-locked to one detachment, you needed actual anti-tank weapons to threaten tanks instead of just spamming plasma...)
I'd still like to see like three or four battalions of Kabalites on Venoms. No limit on troops and transports... seems like that list would be incredibly nasty (especially since the vehicles are open topped and the Kabalites have poison weapons).
Honestly, would this game be so bad if re-rolling the dice just wasn't a thing?
You throw your dice, and you get what you get. End of story.
So much of the anger I see from players seems to center around who can re-roll what, when and how. I mean, isn't it a bit silly that Leviathan Dreadnoughts hit on 2's and re-roll 1's when a Chapter Master is standing near them? This is just one example of a unit that can do this, but why even bother rolling the dice at that point? 1/36 literally will not matter 95% of the time. That's the accuracy of an aimbot in a video game...
To me, the glaring issues with this game and its rules aren't going to ever be addressed until we all acknowledge the elephant in the room:
The d6 system and the current stat-line is too restrictive. I go-you go is out of date and encourages even more min/maxing.
Until we start to acknowledge this, nothing will change and any issues that creep up with power-creep will just be nerfed by making "x,y, or z" "x-amount of more points than it was."
Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.
I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.
Let's put it this way, easy =/= right.
Sure, it's easier to balance fewer moving parts. It's also easier to balance if we remove CP and stratagems entirely. Those are fun gameplay elements, however. People like 'playing abilities' and they like customizing forces from wider options. The preference should always be towards preserving fun elements while balancing than to balance at the expense of popular items.
limitations are fun too. Otherwise we may as well just all be playing unbound. It would be cool if tournaments were faction v faction. It would also make balance a gakload easier to get tighter going forward, as trying to balance 10 factions as a single entity while adding to that number as they progress, is a losing battle.
This is a massive strawman. No one said limitations aren't fun. The point was just allies and stratagems are popular. You can have a very balanced game that absolutely no one wants to play because it's boring. There's absolutely no reason it can't be both fun and balanced, however.
Not to mention we're not talking full factions entirely either. Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Imperial Knights, Legion, even Custodes, these are not fully fleshed out factions.
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
Audustum said a lot of things were guesswork. That was part of the point of Audustum's post. We don't know how a lot of things would go and you may kill the reemergent scene.
Or it might work awesomely! We don't know, your position is no stronger here.
If we just stuck to the cold hard facts this forum would be an empty place.
I think anything that takes away 'fun factors' even if it produces balance should probably be classified as a 'bad' decision. Narrative and Open exist, but there's a reason just about every forum/gathering of the playerbase considers them a joke. Matched Play is the de facto standard.
What about something that increases the 'fun factor' but reduces balance? Is that fine then, indefinitely?
I don't think you believe that. So maybe the optimum point is somewhere a little more balanced than where we are even if it does remove down fluffy options FOR MATCHED PLAY.
The general consensus seems to be we are on the wrong side of balanced. Removing some options may be necessary to remedy that.
You're right, it might work awesomely, but considering these were part of the big three changes (the third being the simplified ruleset) my instinct is to doubt it. When you market based on something, it's not illogical to attribute an upswing in popularity to that marketing.
You're also making a strawman here. No one said fun was greater than all else. It was said that GW should work to make balance while preserving fun elements. That's a night and day difference.
The point I'm making though is that if we want significantly better balance then some sacrifices may need to be made on some things people find fun.
You made it sound like this was a line in the sand for you, that nothing that could be considered fun was on the table for balance purposes.
Let's put it this way, I was saying it's just good game design that you should balance while preserving fun instead of stripping it off. This isn't rocket science, you can easily keep one while doing the other. Lots of companies do.
In the abstract sure. But we're talking about a specific example. You also have to consider that there are people who view soup as unfun, as well as those who view it fun.
Yes, removing it will remove something some people find fun. But it might make the game as a whole more fun overall by virtue of improving balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Basically fun is a poor metric here, hah
The 'specific example' isn't actually that specific. "40k in 8th Edition is unbalanced, how do we fix it?" is the general topic. Some have proposed removing allies, but no basis why that is necessary or the only option is offered.
'Fun' may be a poor metric, but it's ultimately what sells models, aside from those who are pure hobbyists and not players. So it's one we need to consider very heavily. While some people find 'allies' unfun, GW basically settled that debate in 6th Edition. They wouldn't have been reiterated so many times if they weren't helping the company.
The specific example is 'removing soup: good or bad'. That has been the topic of most posts for some pages at this point.
The reason it is being proposed as a solution is because through much debate in many many threads, soup keeps recurring as a source of issues people are having with the game. And because clearly, whether or not it ultimately makes the game more fun, it does make balancing factions significantly easier.
I don't expect or advocate for allies to disappear completely. I just think 8th went too far with regards to IMPERIUM especially and CHAOS and AELDARI too, and the freedom to mix within those super-factions.
Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.
I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.
Let's put it this way, easy =/= right.
Sure, it's easier to balance fewer moving parts. It's also easier to balance if we remove CP and stratagems entirely. Those are fun gameplay elements, however. People like 'playing abilities' and they like customizing forces from wider options. The preference should always be towards preserving fun elements while balancing than to balance at the expense of popular items.
limitations are fun too. Otherwise we may as well just all be playing unbound. It would be cool if tournaments were faction v faction. It would also make balance a gakload easier to get tighter going forward, as trying to balance 10 factions as a single entity while adding to that number as they progress, is a losing battle.
This is a massive strawman. No one said limitations aren't fun. The point was just allies and stratagems are popular. You can have a very balanced game that absolutely no one wants to play because it's boring. There's absolutely no reason it can't be both fun and balanced, however.
Not to mention we're not talking full factions entirely either. Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Imperial Knights, Legion, even Custodes, these are not fully fleshed out factions.
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
Audustum said a lot of things were guesswork. That was part of the point of Audustum's post. We don't know how a lot of things would go and you may kill the reemergent scene.
Or it might work awesomely! We don't know, your position is no stronger here.
If we just stuck to the cold hard facts this forum would be an empty place.
I think anything that takes away 'fun factors' even if it produces balance should probably be classified as a 'bad' decision. Narrative and Open exist, but there's a reason just about every forum/gathering of the playerbase considers them a joke. Matched Play is the de facto standard.
What about something that increases the 'fun factor' but reduces balance? Is that fine then, indefinitely?
I don't think you believe that. So maybe the optimum point is somewhere a little more balanced than where we are even if it does remove down fluffy options FOR MATCHED PLAY.
The general consensus seems to be we are on the wrong side of balanced. Removing some options may be necessary to remedy that.
You're right, it might work awesomely, but considering these were part of the big three changes (the third being the simplified ruleset) my instinct is to doubt it. When you market based on something, it's not illogical to attribute an upswing in popularity to that marketing.
You're also making a strawman here. No one said fun was greater than all else. It was said that GW should work to make balance while preserving fun elements. That's a night and day difference.
The point I'm making though is that if we want significantly better balance then some sacrifices may need to be made on some things people find fun.
You made it sound like this was a line in the sand for you, that nothing that could be considered fun was on the table for balance purposes.
Let's put it this way, I was saying it's just good game design that you should balance while preserving fun instead of stripping it off. This isn't rocket science, you can easily keep one while doing the other. Lots of companies do.
In the abstract sure. But we're talking about a specific example. You also have to consider that there are people who view soup as unfun, as well as those who view it fun.
Yes, removing it will remove something some people find fun. But it might make the game as a whole more fun overall by virtue of improving balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Basically fun is a poor metric here, hah
The 'specific example' isn't actually that specific. "40k in 8th Edition is unbalanced, how do we fix it?" is the general topic. Some have proposed removing allies, but no basis why that is necessary or the only option is offered.
'Fun' may be a poor metric, but it's ultimately what sells models, aside from those who are pure hobbyists and not players. So it's one we need to consider very heavily. While some people find 'allies' unfun, GW basically settled that debate in 6th Edition. They wouldn't have been reiterated so many times if they weren't helping the company.
The specific example is 'removing soup: good or bad'. That has been the topic of most posts for some pages at this point.
The reason it is being proposed as a solution is because through much debate in many many threads, soup keeps recurring as a source of issues people are having with the game. And because clearly, whether or not it ultimately makes the game more fun, it does make balancing factions significantly easier.
I don't expect or advocate for allies to disappear completely. I just think 8th went too far with regards to IMPERIUM especially and CHAOS and AELDARI too, and the freedom to mix within those super-factions.
Correction: 7th was actually easier to soup. 8th scaled it back a bit.
As to to the rest, I addressed this. See this line: "'40k in 8th Edition is unbalanced, how do we fix it?' is the general topic. Some have proposed removing allies, but no basis why that is necessary or the only option is offered". I've read this entire thread and that's where we are.
Stux wrote: Other options are offered. This is the option being discussed right here right now.
I've given my reasons for why I believe it could be necessary. I don't feel inclined to go over it yet again just for your benefit I'm afraid.
In a topic this broad, all options are always being discussed. You're trying to artificially limit the conversation.
I haven't seen anything besides "well, removing allies might work" but lots of things might work. That's no reason to just jump in and do them. We have scenarios where we can keep what we have and balance the game. GW should prioritize those even if it difficult.
SHUPPET wrote: I find a balanced game to be more fun than allies
They aren't opposites. We can say that GW can't balance the game with allies. But they can't balance it without allies either so... what are we gonna do?
Personally, I would accept all kind of limitations to allies, cp related, etc... before banning them.
Or well. Why don't tournaments start doing different formats? In Spain you have "fullhammer" tournaments where everything goes, and then you have ITC, ETC, tournaments, and those don't use Forgeworld for example, and have other limitations like not having the same detachment more than once (Both use the max 3 detachment at 1-2k points)
Stux wrote: Other options are offered. This is the option being discussed right here right now.
I've given my reasons for why I believe it could be necessary. I don't feel inclined to go over it yet again just for your benefit I'm afraid.
In a topic this broad, all options are always being discussed. You're trying to artificially limit the conversation.
I haven't seen anything besides "well, removing allies might work" but lots of things might work. That's no reason to just jump in and do them. We have scenarios where we can keep what we have and balance the game. GW should prioritize those even if it difficult.
I wasn't trying to artificially limit anything. At that time there were multiple people having a discussion about that particular sub topic.
OK! So we're all agreed then! Castellan's need nerfs because CP is OP because Guard has OP Relics that Make Castellans OP because their Stratagems are never meant to be used with the ammount of CP that Guard can generate because Soup and allies are OP?
Jesus, it's hilarious to me that Castellan apologists are almost the exact same as Guard apologists. "MY UNIT ISN'T OP, LOOK AT THIS UNIT OVER HERE!!! STOP NERFING MY FAVORITE OP UNIT!"
A while back I posted a thread about soup and why it wasn’t going away. The thesis to my argument there is “Unless it’s more profitable for GW to remove soup then keep they won’t, FURTHERMORE it extremely unlikely that soup will ever affect game balance enouugh to make any significant nerfs to it a profitable decision.”One thing to note is that most people’s response to my thread was “no duh, of course money only matters.” Yet here we are when many posters doubting that sentiment.
I don’t want want repeat myself too much so I’m just going to post a link to that thread
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: OK! So we're all agreed then! Castellan's need nerfs because CP is OP because Guard has OP Relics that Make Castellans OP because their Stratagems are never meant to be used with the ammount of CP that Guard can generate because Soup and allies are OP?
Jesus, it's hilarious to me that Castellan apologists are almost the exact same as Guard apologists. "MY UNIT ISN'T OP, LOOK AT THIS UNIT OVER HERE!!! STOP NERFING MY FAVORITE OP UNIT!"
Honestly I too do think that the Castellan is fine. Is all the rest that isn't. If the Castellan is not played with the 4++ trait, the Cawl's Wrath and a load of CPs, the point cost is fine.
It's the trait, the stratagem and most of all the relic that make it OP.
I'm not sure these 'older' players are the main shoppers anymore. 7th actually saw an expansion of the playerbase and, if tournament attendance is anything to go by, 8th is the golden age of expansionism. That expansion has been built off the back of an allies matrix. Custodes bring Psykers and Assassins, Space Marines work with Imperial Guard, Chaos Space Marines are frequently half Codex-Daemons, e.t.c. If you took away allies, I don't think the response of most of those people will be "well, better flesh out each faction". They'd at least be as likely to just ebay the thing and go find something else (even Age of Sigmar which would be less restrictive by that point).
I wasn't trying to suggest older players were the largest proportion, just that the game was once "Mono-Faction" only and so we KNOW it can work that way.
-
I wanted to highlight this part as someone that started in 4th edition.
We KNOW the game can be played this way. The question is: did it actually work like you say it did? Internal balance was still wonky and bad, so only specific armies worked.
Internal balance is always the issue here, sorry. Everyone can blame allies and soup all they want, and all you really have to do is look at 5th edition to know what the actual consistent issue is.
Personally, I would accept all kind of limitations to allies, cp related, etc... before banning them.
The core problem is just that the game has a very loose definition of what a faction is, has WAY too many factions and far too many of them have the barest selection of options to work with. The only way you could really remove soup and keep anywhere near the variety we have now is by massively consolidating things (particularly Imperial things) into a much smaller set of factions. That's ultimately what soup is doing though. I think its overall a pretty successful experiment that's primarily needs some outliers snipped and its core philosophy extended to Xenos factions in a way that makes sense for them. For example, I'd love to see Orks carved up into several smaller "factions" that soup together into a really cool, dynamic set of detachments.
I'm not willing to say the Castellan is fine. I am willing to say that its not good development to nerf it from two directions at one time.
Simple rules for good game development are Fix the game first over fixing a specific model. That means fix the CP issue, then see if that clears the Model issue.
Personally, I would accept all kind of limitations to allies, cp related, etc... before banning them.
The core problem is just that the game has a very loose definition of what a faction is, has WAY too many factions and far too many of them have the barest selection of options to work with. The only way you could really remove soup and keep anywhere near the variety we have now is by massively consolidating things (particularly Imperial things) into a much smaller set of factions. That's ultimately what soup is doing though. I think its overall a pretty successful experiment that's primarily needs some outliers snipped and its core philosophy extended to Xenos factions in a way that makes sense for them. For example, I'd love to see Orks carved up into several smaller "factions" that soup together into a really cool, dynamic set of detachments.
^^^^
THIS!
I would buy an entirely new army of Orks if we could have Da Burna Boyz faction, or Da Footstompas, Or the Speed Freaks!
Personally, I would accept all kind of limitations to allies, cp related, etc... before banning them.
The core problem is just that the game has a very loose definition of what a faction is, has WAY too many factions and far too many of them have the barest selection of options to work with. The only way you could really remove soup and keep anywhere near the variety we have now is by massively consolidating things (particularly Imperial things) into a much smaller set of factions. That's ultimately what soup is doing though. I think its overall a pretty successful experiment that's primarily needs some outliers snipped and its core philosophy extended to Xenos factions in a way that makes sense for them. For example, I'd love to see Orks carved up into several smaller "factions" that soup together into a really cool, dynamic set of detachments.
^^^^
THIS!
I would buy an entirely new army of Orks if we could have Da Burna Boyz faction, or Da Footstompas, Or the Speed Freaks!
Exactly! Expand the soup for everyone! Let Orks bring some of the other races as allies too. I'd love rules for Khorne-Ork armies to be fielded together like Genestealers can take Astra Militarum. They can be those Orks that are on that one Daemon World eternally fighting the best fight ever (aka their heaven).
Personally, I would accept all kind of limitations to allies, cp related, etc... before banning them.
The core problem is just that the game has a very loose definition of what a faction is, has WAY too many factions and far too many of them have the barest selection of options to work with. The only way you could really remove soup and keep anywhere near the variety we have now is by massively consolidating things (particularly Imperial things) into a much smaller set of factions. That's ultimately what soup is doing though. I think its overall a pretty successful experiment that's primarily needs some outliers snipped and its core philosophy extended to Xenos factions in a way that makes sense for them. For example, I'd love to see Orks carved up into several smaller "factions" that soup together into a really cool, dynamic set of detachments.
^^^^
THIS!
I would buy an entirely new army of Orks if we could have Da Burna Boyz faction, or Da Footstompas, Or the Speed Freaks!
We already know what the ork factions are. Speed freaks is one of them. Getting new models too.
Personally, I would accept all kind of limitations to allies, cp related, etc... before banning them.
The core problem is just that the game has a very loose definition of what a faction is, has WAY too many factions and far too many of them have the barest selection of options to work with. The only way you could really remove soup and keep anywhere near the variety we have now is by massively consolidating things (particularly Imperial things) into a much smaller set of factions. That's ultimately what soup is doing though. I think its overall a pretty successful experiment that's primarily needs some outliers snipped and its core philosophy extended to Xenos factions in a way that makes sense for them. For example, I'd love to see Orks carved up into several smaller "factions" that soup together into a really cool, dynamic set of detachments.
^^^^
THIS!
I would buy an entirely new army of Orks if we could have Da Burna Boyz faction, or Da Footstompas, Or the Speed Freaks!
Exactly! Expand the soup for everyone! Let Orks bring some of the other races as allies too. I'd love rules for Khorne-Ork armies to be fielded together like Genestealers can take Astra Militarum. They can be those Orks that are on that one Daemon World eternally fighting the best fight ever (aka their heaven).
Have you heard of Age of Sigmar - I think that is your game man. Check it out. I just got into it.
Personally, I would accept all kind of limitations to allies, cp related, etc... before banning them.
The core problem is just that the game has a very loose definition of what a faction is, has WAY too many factions and far too many of them have the barest selection of options to work with. The only way you could really remove soup and keep anywhere near the variety we have now is by massively consolidating things (particularly Imperial things) into a much smaller set of factions. That's ultimately what soup is doing though. I think its overall a pretty successful experiment that's primarily needs some outliers snipped and its core philosophy extended to Xenos factions in a way that makes sense for them. For example, I'd love to see Orks carved up into several smaller "factions" that soup together into a really cool, dynamic set of detachments.
^^^^
THIS!
I would buy an entirely new army of Orks if we could have Da Burna Boyz faction, or Da Footstompas, Or the Speed Freaks!
We already know what the ork factions are. Speed freaks is one of them. Getting new models too.
Personally, I would accept all kind of limitations to allies, cp related, etc... before banning them.
The core problem is just that the game has a very loose definition of what a faction is, has WAY too many factions and far too many of them have the barest selection of options to work with. The only way you could really remove soup and keep anywhere near the variety we have now is by massively consolidating things (particularly Imperial things) into a much smaller set of factions. That's ultimately what soup is doing though. I think its overall a pretty successful experiment that's primarily needs some outliers snipped and its core philosophy extended to Xenos factions in a way that makes sense for them. For example, I'd love to see Orks carved up into several smaller "factions" that soup together into a really cool, dynamic set of detachments.
^^^^
THIS!
I would buy an entirely new army of Orks if we could have Da Burna Boyz faction, or Da Footstompas, Or the Speed Freaks!
Exactly! Expand the soup for everyone! Let Orks bring some of the other races as allies too. I'd love rules for Khorne-Ork armies to be fielded together like Genestealers can take Astra Militarum. They can be those Orks that are on that one Daemon World eternally fighting the best fight ever (aka their heaven).
Have you heard of Age of Sigmar - I think that is your game man. Check it out. I just got into it.
Unfortunately, my group is firmly 40k with no Sigmar and the general attitude is enough money/resources have been spent on 40k that there won't be movement. It's mostly busy careerists who don't have time for more than one miniature game (and barely time for that). No Sigmar for me.
Reemule wrote: I'm not willing to say the Castellan is fine. I am willing to say that its not good development to nerf it from two directions at one time.
Simple rules for good game development are Fix the game first over fixing a specific model. That means fix the CP issue, then see if that clears the Model issue.
It clearly isn't a CP issue though because Chaos ones can get the same amount of CP basically. It's a combination of Households and Relics. Cawls Wrath being free is basically all the proof one needs about free relics being a broken concept.
As far as the argument for whether or not soup is good or not, I believe it is mostly good. That being said i’ll go over my primary negatives of soup first.
Right now soup presents two big problems, the first is that it disproportionately benifts certain factions over others. This point has already been talked to death so I won’t go into too much detail on it, necrons, tau, and orks start at inate disadvantage compared to armies which soup. This problem is a direct result of GW’s attempt to streamline the game (as the allies matrex was a confusing mess), but keywords do help certain factions over others.
The second problem of soup is that extremely powerful units and abilities have a greater impact on game since more armies have access to them. Case in point the IG battalion/brigade. It can’t be debated that without soup these types of detachments wouldn’t be nearly as problematic. Once again this has been talked to death so I go much beyond this.
So why I am in favor a soup despite these 2 issues? A lot of reasons so I’ll give a list
1) both these negatives aren’t that big deals. Sure they are annoying, but I strongly disagree that they are game breaking. Mono-army factions can still be strong provided their books are strong enough. It won’t always work out (see necrons), but can be reasonable as well (see tau and likely to be orks). As far as point 2 is concerned yeah OP stuff is worse with soup, but OP stuff is bad anyway regardless if soup exists. In a soulless world this thread would likely be a debate over how unfair IG is, and whether or not GW can ever successfully balance armies against eachother. GW is more frequent with fixes stuff shouldn’t stay OP for too long, ergo this isn’t that big of issue.
2) most of the other complaints about soup are extremely minor. For example people love to harp on how soup makes it so certain armies have no weaknesses, but that A) isn’t really true and B) isn’t that bad. In essence adding allies means gaining some of that armies strengths, but it also means acquiring a portion of its weaknesses. Consider adding an IG detachment to a Knight army. True it adds a lot of CP to the army and board presence, but it also carries costs. It adds more units to your list, which means you are less likely to get +1 to go first. It gives your opponent good targets for their anti infantry guns which they wouldn’t have had otherwise, and in that same vain gives them easy things to kill for mission purposes. Finally it costs a detachment slot, which is a bigger deal than many think. To put it bluntly you weaken your armies strengths by including allies. The problem is that the pros of an IG battalion far outweigh the cons, because IG are OP. Take out grand strategist, or raise the price of guardsman and commanders (very underpriced at 30 points) and all of sudden that battalion is very likely not an auto include anymore.
3) Soup solves more things then it hurts. This ones harder to see because we aren’t directly experiencing the problems that soup solves, but believe me it solves a lot of problems. Here’s a big example. I have played competitive 40k during 2 editions, 5th and 8th. I have to say i’ve greatly enjoyed 8th edition more than 5th. Part of this is because I’m better now than I was then (you enjoy things more when you’re good at them), but there are plenty of other reasons as well. Chief among them is allies. In 5th a single OP unit could define an army. There was codex Nob bikerz, codex: guys in chimeras and vendettas, codex: guys in razor backs, codex: terminators with storm shields, codex: palidens and psy autocannon dreads, codex: heldrakes and obliterators, etc etc. The reason for this is because most armies all had units with similar strengths. Due to this people would simply only use the most OP units. You couldn’t pick units from other armies to plug your weakness, so it is best to go all in your strengths. That meant spamming the best units and nothing else. Also if your armies best units weren’t up to meta standerd, well tough crackers your army sucks. Doesn’t matter that you have plenty of pretty good units (see space marines and tau) if you’re not the best you’ll need to buy a new army. To put it into perspective, a codex like custodies would have no chance in 5th, something soup solved.
4) lots of out of game benefits. There are a lot of cool units in 40k. I don’t want to have to start an army anytime i want to use just 1-2 of its units. Soup helps a lot with that. Additionally the community has grown due to soup. More people means more people to talk to, a more healthy competitive environment, and more people which get to to experience this wonderful hobby. That’s a big + for me. Balance is nice, but shouldn’t take precedence over everything else. I hate to be that guy, but go play chess if you only want that (also a wonderful game btw).
Reemule wrote: I'm not willing to say the Castellan is fine. I am willing to say that its not good development to nerf it from two directions at one time.
Simple rules for good game development are Fix the game first over fixing a specific model. That means fix the CP issue, then see if that clears the Model issue.
It clearly isn't a CP issue though because Chaos ones can get the same amount of CP basically. It's a combination of Households and Relics. Cawls Wrath being free is basically all the proof one needs about free relics being a broken concept.
Yeah - relics are not all made equal.
Cawls wrath and primarchs wrath are equal in terms of command points. One is basically a mega storm bolter - the other is basically 2 riptide ion accerlators with a little less range. So basically - 200 points of firepower compare to about 10.
Salt donkey wrote:A while back I posted a thread about soup and why it wasn’t going away. The thesis to my argument there is “Unless it’s more profitable for GW to remove soup then keep they won’t, FURTHERMORE it extremely unlikely that soup will ever affect game balance enouugh to make any significant nerfs to it a profitable decision.”One thing to note is that most people’s response to my thread was “no duh, of course money only matters.” Yet here we are when many posters doubting that sentiment.
I don’t want want repeat myself too much so I’m just going to post a link to that thread
The same thing was said about Rule of 3. What GW will lose in sales they will make up for by attracting players to a better game. The biggest hurdle right now to people looking to jump into the largest competitive tabletop in the game is the fact that you need three armies to play at once and that's overwhelmingly. That's my counter hypothesis to you anyway.
I don't know it is one thing to be forced to run bigger squads or lose one unit out of a list. It is a totaly a different thing, when one has to think that at any moment GW may just decide to make their 700-1000$ army illegal.
The person who bought a castellan would REALLY have to like painting and converting, to not be angry about a castellan nerf with how much it costs.
When GW nerfed the deep strike and mono BA lists, the two people that played BAs quit the game, but no new BA players ever came. In fact in my whole city we didn't have any new new players start and army. If someone new comes to play, it is always someone who already owns models from 4th-6th ed. I know the 7th ed players are rather salty and aside for those that play tournaments, non of those kept playing when 8th cstarted.
Reemule wrote: I'm not willing to say the Castellan is fine. I am willing to say that its not good development to nerf it from two directions at one time.
Simple rules for good game development are Fix the game first over fixing a specific model. That means fix the CP issue, then see if that clears the Model issue.
It clearly isn't a CP issue though because Chaos ones can get the same amount of CP basically. It's a combination of Households and Relics. Cawls Wrath being free is basically all the proof one needs about free relics being a broken concept.
Chaos ones have only a single strategem to spend cp on..
Reemule wrote: I'm not willing to say the Castellan is fine. I am willing to say that its not good development to nerf it from two directions at one time.
Simple rules for good game development are Fix the game first over fixing a specific model. That means fix the CP issue, then see if that clears the Model issue.
It clearly isn't a CP issue though because Chaos ones can get the same amount of CP basically. It's a combination of Households and Relics. Cawls Wrath being free is basically all the proof one needs about free relics being a broken concept.
Yeah - relics are not all made equal.
Cawls wrath and primarchs wrath are equal in terms of command points. One is basically a mega storm bolter - the other is basically 2 riptide ion accerlators with a little less range. So basically - 200 points of firepower compare to about 10.
I think this is interesting, maybe some relics need to cost cp above and beyond any cp to get a relic.
The problem with Imperial Knight relics is that they cost exactly the same as relics in all other codices (Free, 1CP, 3 CP) but they are not the same. This would be fine in the context of pure Knight armies strugling to get CP. With the FAQ change to their detachment rules they can have a nice amount of CP in a pure Knight Army. Of course, with that you couldn't have all the relics that you want and also use all the stratagems that you want. And thats a shame, because theres many stratagems that are fine but when you are strugling to get CP, is like, why bother?
The Tau Onager Gauntlet is not equivalent to the Imperial Knight Fist-Relic. But not because the Onager is worse. It is just because the Imperial Knight is a super heavy with very powerfull weapons, that are reallly expensive
Reemule wrote: I'm not willing to say the Castellan is fine. I am willing to say that its not good development to nerf it from two directions at one time.
Simple rules for good game development are Fix the game first over fixing a specific model. That means fix the CP issue, then see if that clears the Model issue.
It clearly isn't a CP issue though because Chaos ones can get the same amount of CP basically. It's a combination of Households and Relics. Cawls Wrath being free is basically all the proof one needs about free relics being a broken concept.
Chaos ones have only a single strategem to spend cp on..
Reemule wrote: I'm not willing to say the Castellan is fine. I am willing to say that its not good development to nerf it from two directions at one time.
Simple rules for good game development are Fix the game first over fixing a specific model. That means fix the CP issue, then see if that clears the Model issue.
It clearly isn't a CP issue though because Chaos ones can get the same amount of CP basically. It's a combination of Households and Relics. Cawls Wrath being free is basically all the proof one needs about free relics being a broken concept.
Yeah - relics are not all made equal.
Cawls wrath and primarchs wrath are equal in terms of command points. One is basically a mega storm bolter - the other is basically 2 riptide ion accerlators with a little less range. So basically - 200 points of firepower compare to about 10.
I think this is interesting, maybe some relics need to cost cp above and beyond any cp to get a relic.
AND did you read that Stratagem? It's pretty darn good. However, let's say they gain every single Stratagem the Knight codex has. The issue would be the Relics and Households, clearly. Cawls Wrath shouldn't be free in ANY manner. Period.
It's pretty hard to buff relic bolt pistol equal to 2d6 S8 AP-4 D2 which can be buffed to S9/D3 I would say...So guess which one you spend CP on?
Whilst I agree that that relics are not equal and should cost points, this is still kinda false comparison. The cost of bringing as space marine character with a bolt pistol or a stormbolter is not the same as a cost of bringing a Castellan with plasma. You have already paid way more points for that Castellan plasma weapon before any relics are being bought.
It's pretty hard to buff relic bolt pistol equal to 2d6 S8 AP-4 D2 which can be buffed to S9/D3 I would say...So guess which one you spend CP on?
Whilst I agree that that relics are not equal and should cost points, this is still kinda false comparison. The cost of bringing as space marine character with a bolt pistol or a stormbolter is not the same as a cost of bringing a Castellan with plasma. You have already paid way more points for that Castellan plasma weapon before any relics are being bought.
100% this. It's an unfair comparison.
That said, many of the Infantry weapon replacement relics in many of the Codexes are just bad choices, so something could do with changing there.
Spoletta wrote: A relic bolt pistol should be on the level of:
Pistol 3 S6 -2 D2
to really be worthy of a CP or a relic.
Sure, I think that kind of level would be totally fine. In fact you may still not get people taking it.
The thing is with relic weapons is that they mostly just make you a little bit more killy. Which is all well and good, but there are loads of ways to make your army more killy without using up your free relic slot.
The popular relics are usually (not exclusively, but usually) unique utility effects. Like CP generation, or fancy auras and such. Something you can't get just be taking normal units with stronger weapons.
So a relic Storm Bolter (for example) shouldn't just be better Storm Bolters. They should have a unique additional effect, and one that is actually useful. For instance the fluff for a relic Storm Bolter could be that it sets enemies on fire, and you represent that by giving subsequent shooting attacks against the same target that shooting phase +1 to hit.
Or alternatively a relic Power Sword could inspire friendly models nearby, who know of the legendary deeds done with that Sword. So it could give units within 6" exploding 6s in the Fight Phase.
Personally, I would accept all kind of limitations to allies, cp related, etc... before banning them.
The core problem is just that the game has a very loose definition of what a faction is, has WAY too many factions and far too many of them have the barest selection of options to work with. The only way you could really remove soup and keep anywhere near the variety we have now is by massively consolidating things (particularly Imperial things) into a much smaller set of factions. That's ultimately what soup is doing though. I think its overall a pretty successful experiment that's primarily needs some outliers snipped and its core philosophy extended to Xenos factions in a way that makes sense for them. For example, I'd love to see Orks carved up into several smaller "factions" that soup together into a really cool, dynamic set of detachments.
^^^^
THIS!
I would buy an entirely new army of Orks if we could have Da Burna Boyz faction, or Da Footstompas, Or the Speed Freaks!
Exactly! Expand the soup for everyone! Let Orks bring some of the other races as allies too. I'd love rules for Khorne-Ork armies to be fielded together like Genestealers can take Astra Militarum. They can be those Orks that are on that one Daemon World eternally fighting the best fight ever (aka their heaven).
Yeah, until someone starts winning tournaments with a combo that includes a faction people serially don't like (eldar plus anything, tau plus anything) and all the imperium players lose their minds because of how fluff breaking it is.
It'd happen. You know it would. Like if Tau were allowed to bring in support from Harlequins or something like that based on some new fluff development where they're working together.
You're wrong. I LOVED the way DOW1 used the Orks and Chaos as mutual enemies. They worked, thematically and fluff wise. The Orks were being controlled by the Chaos. Same with Eldar/Orks. Tau/Eldar would be easy to fluff up. The only difficult ones to fluff would be Necrons/Anyone. Because Necrons literally want everyone to die. So maybe 1kSons/Necrons? Promise them death and slaughter of the living?
It would be AMAZEBALLS to have to plan against a DEldar/Chaos foe, or a Tau/Eldar force. Tau hold the line while Harlequins chop them up? I want this. Like I've never wanted anything else. PLEASE GIVE ME ORK/ELDAR COMbOS!!
Matt.Kingsley wrote: He isn't wrong though. We already know people would complain about such 'unfluffy' combos. Just look at 6th.
Absolutely.
And honestly, I'd be fine if GW phrased this change as an 'organised play suggestion' exactly as the rule of 3.
That way they can still say 'if you want maximum balance, you can do this', while still allowing people playing casual games with full matched play rules to ignore it should they wish.
It's pretty hard to buff relic bolt pistol equal to 2d6 S8 AP-4 D2 which can be buffed to S9/D3 I would say...So guess which one you spend CP on?
Whilst I agree that that relics are not equal and should cost points, this is still kinda false comparison. The cost of bringing as space marine character with a bolt pistol or a stormbolter is not the same as a cost of bringing a Castellan with plasma. You have already paid way more points for that Castellan plasma weapon before any relics are being bought.
100% this. It's an unfair comparison.
That said, many of the Infantry weapon replacement relics in many of the Codexes are just bad choices, so something could do with changing there.
It's not an unfair comparison though. They cost the exact same CP. What is unfair is the additional power you are getting out of a weapon for the same cost. For a relic storm bolter you are getting like maybe 1 more average damage - for a weapon like cawls wrath - you are getting probably 5 more average damage. Pulled these numbers out of the air but just trying to make my point.
Cawls wrath is probably 5x more efficient in terms of CP spent to total power received.
Spoletta wrote: A relic bolt pistol should be on the level of:
Pistol 3 S6 -2 D2
to really be worthy of a CP or a relic.
So why you would take that rather than cawl's wrath? Which one is better usage of CP?
Let's not use Cawl's wrath as an element of comparison because it is clearly OP.
Let's use the relic gatling cannon. So the question is, should i get that pistol on my captain, or give about 4 more shots of gatling to my knight? The profiles are the same S6 AP-2 D2. In one case you are giving more power to a big shooty platform, in the other you are giving this power to an untargetable char, but at lower range one less shot and higher BS. It's not that obvious of a choice.
Relic Gatling is about half another gatling. It averages 12 hits where 2 galtings averages 16. Or like...2 more hellbasters killed per turn...not a big deal.
It's pretty hard to buff relic bolt pistol equal to 2d6 S8 AP-4 D2 which can be buffed to S9/D3 I would say...So guess which one you spend CP on?
Whilst I agree that that relics are not equal and should cost points, this is still kinda false comparison. The cost of bringing as space marine character with a bolt pistol or a stormbolter is not the same as a cost of bringing a Castellan with plasma. You have already paid way more points for that Castellan plasma weapon before any relics are being bought.
100% this. It's an unfair comparison.
That said, many of the Infantry weapon replacement relics in many of the Codexes are just bad choices, so something could do with changing there.
It's not an unfair comparison though. They cost the exact same CP. What is unfair is the additional power you are getting out of a weapon for the same cost. For a relic storm bolter you are getting like maybe 1 more average damage - for a weapon like cawls wrath - you are getting probably 5 more average damage. Pulled these numbers out of the air but just trying to make my point.
Cawls wrath is probably 5x more efficient in terms of CP spent to total power received.
I do agree with that, honestly.
There seemed to be some people suggesting that comparing the guns to each other without taking into account the points paid for them is fair. That was what I was contesting.
Even taking into account the price paid, there is still an imbalance though, totally on board there!
Matt.Kingsley wrote: He isn't wrong though. We already know people would complain about such 'unfluffy' combos. Just look at 6th.
People complain about Guard and Marines as an unfluffy combo. People complain.
That said, I'd rather not ally Xenos factions with other factions. Partially its because its less fluffy, but primarily because they represent more unique aesthetics. I'm much rather see Ork stuff supported on the level of Eldar than Orks become a subcomponent of the Chaos faction. I've always thought they are probably the second most iconic aspect of 40k after marines.
It's pretty hard to buff relic bolt pistol equal to 2d6 S8 AP-4 D2 which can be buffed to S9/D3 I would say...So guess which one you spend CP on?
Whilst I agree that that relics are not equal and should cost points, this is still kinda false comparison. The cost of bringing as space marine character with a bolt pistol or a stormbolter is not the same as a cost of bringing a Castellan with plasma. You have already paid way more points for that Castellan plasma weapon before any relics are being bought.
100% this. It's an unfair comparison.
That said, many of the Infantry weapon replacement relics in many of the Codexes are just bad choices, so something could do with changing there.
It's not an unfair comparison though. They cost the exact same CP. What is unfair is the additional power you are getting out of a weapon for the same cost. For a relic storm bolter you are getting like maybe 1 more average damage - for a weapon like cawls wrath - you are getting probably 5 more average damage. Pulled these numbers out of the air but just trying to make my point.
Cawls wrath is probably 5x more efficient in terms of CP spent to total power received.
I do agree with that, honestly.
There seemed to be some people suggesting that comparing the guns to each other without taking into account the points paid for them is fair. That was what I was contesting.
Even taking into account the price paid, there is still an imbalance though, totally on board there!
Alright - so what is the solution? Make the knights Relics 2/5 CP respectively?
Matt.Kingsley wrote: He isn't wrong though. We already know people would complain about such 'unfluffy' combos. Just look at 6th.
People complain about Guard and Marines as an unfluffy combo. People complain.
That said, I'd rather not ally Xenos factions with other factions. Partially its because its less fluffy, but primarily because they represent more unique aesthetics. I'm much rather see Ork stuff supported on the level of Eldar than Orks become a subcomponent of the Chaos faction. I've always thought they are probably the second most iconic aspect of 40k after marines.
It would be best if they had done that - we would have had lots of extra stuff for many factions - sadly all they wanted to do was have slightly different Marines - or even worse - Super Wolfy Wolf Wolf Marines.
Basically I wouldn't have relic weapons just be better weapons. They need a utility effect instead.
Knight relic guns don't need that, they're good enough as is. But infantry level ones I don't think there's any point just souping up.
I'm not against pts for relics either though. But I don't think it would help in making people take the current relic weapons, they are all very underwhelming.
Basically I wouldn't have relic weapons just be better weapons. They need a utility effect instead.
Knight relic guns don't need that, they're good enough as is. But infantry level ones I don't think there's any point just souping up.
I'm not against pts for relics either though. But I don't think it would help in making people take the current relic weapons, they are all very underwhelming.
Or they can just make Relics cost points again. That would be a lot easier. I'm PRETTY sure we as a forum can decide how much more Cawls Wrath is worth compared to the regular Plasma weapon.
Basically I wouldn't have relic weapons just be better weapons. They need a utility effect instead.
Knight relic guns don't need that, they're good enough as is. But infantry level ones I don't think there's any point just souping up.
I'm not against pts for relics either though. But I don't think it would help in making people take the current relic weapons, they are all very underwhelming.
Or they can just make Relics cost points again. That would be a lot easier. I'm PRETTY sure we as a forum can decide how much more Cawls Wrath is worth compared to the regular Plasma weapon.
I don't doubt that. I still think a lot of the relic weapons would be crap, just because their effects are so minimal, however you point them. So why not talk about how we can fix that too?
Points are just another stat on an item. Making Relics cost points really doesn't change anything other than which ones are efficient and which ones are not, which is already the deciding factor for which one to take.
That is true, but a super efficient free relict is always going to be less game breaking then a super efficient relic you still have to pay some points for.
Unless we are talking about absoluts, there are degrees to how good or how much influence a single item can be.
Basically I wouldn't have relic weapons just be better weapons. They need a utility effect instead.
Knight relic guns don't need that, they're good enough as is. But infantry level ones I don't think there's any point just souping up.
I'm not against pts for relics either though. But I don't think it would help in making people take the current relic weapons, they are all very underwhelming.
Or they can just make Relics cost points again. That would be a lot easier. I'm PRETTY sure we as a forum can decide how much more Cawls Wrath is worth compared to the regular Plasma weapon.
I don't doubt that. I still think a lot of the relic weapons would be crap, just because their effects are so minimal, however you point them. So why not talk about how we can fix that too?
I would actually say that, functionality wise, this edition is pretty good for weapon relics because of the AP system this edition making less weapons useless once you bump into a Marine. Old style AP4? Heck no.
The issue is those relics now all have the same cost. Even if we assume CP can no longer be shared or anything, Cawls Wrath isn't a weapon that should be free in any circumstance.
The other issue is ACTUALLY how you're limited to one relic per generic character. All the special characters have their own special weapons typically and then have some bonus effect on top for what is usually not much of a price increase. Yet at the same time most of those characters don't get used for one reason or another. It wouldn't be game breaking for some Captain to be packing the Crusaders Helm and the Shield Eternal at once AS LONG as they pay the appropriate price for that equipment.
This edition has been built from the ground up with the concept of limiting stacking effects, and allowing only one relic per model is one of the effects of this design. This way you can have powerful relics without having the problem of models just taking them all and going back to herohammer.
Spoletta wrote: This edition has been built from the ground up with the concept of limiting stacking effects, and allowing only one relic per model is one of the effects of this design. This way you can have powerful relics without having the problem of models just taking them all and going back to herohammer.
Except the issue with "Herohammer" was always the same few broken Characters. It's broken units that are the problem, when once again you guys blame something else.
It's pretty hard to buff relic bolt pistol equal to 2d6 S8 AP-4 D2 which can be buffed to S9/D3 I would say...So guess which one you spend CP on?
Whilst I agree that that relics are not equal and should cost points, this is still kinda false comparison. The cost of bringing as space marine character with a bolt pistol or a stormbolter is not the same as a cost of bringing a Castellan with plasma. You have already paid way more points for that Castellan plasma weapon before any relics are being bought.
100% this. It's an unfair comparison.
That said, many of the Infantry weapon replacement relics in many of the Codexes are just bad choices, so something could do with changing there.
It's not an unfair comparison though. They cost the exact same CP. What is unfair is the additional power you are getting out of a weapon for the same cost. For a relic storm bolter you are getting like maybe 1 more average damage - for a weapon like cawls wrath - you are getting probably 5 more average damage. Pulled these numbers out of the air but just trying to make my point.
Cawls wrath is probably 5x more efficient in terms of CP spent to total power received.
I do agree with that, honestly.
There seemed to be some people suggesting that comparing the guns to each other without taking into account the points paid for them is fair. That was what I was contesting.
Even taking into account the price paid, there is still an imbalance though, totally on board there!
Alright - so what is the solution? Make the knights Relics 2/5 CP respectively?
This is more another issue driven by CP not so much the relic it's self. Knights paying 170 points of model for 1CP should be getting something better relic wise for that 1CP than Guard paying down in the 20 points per CP.
Now yes being able to spend those 20 point CP on strategums designed to be powered using 170 point CP is why the costs all seem jacked up. In points spent it would be the equivalent of 7 or 8 IG relics.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
The original poster. Then go read all the pages of is going to, isn't going to.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
The original poster. Then go read all the pages of is going to, isn't going to.
It didn't.
I think the least relevant part of his post was the specifier of whether it's point goes up in the FAQ or the CA right after it. Enjoy your pedantry I guess.
