GW's idea of balance has the subtlety of starting or stopping a chainsaw. "One Codex is too popular, better nerf the hell out of it. Another Codex is too unpopular, better give them something virtually unstoppable without fixing their other units."
So if I hypothetically gained complete creative control over GW, and I wanted each codex to be perfectly balanced both internally and externally, where would I start?
Prompt: If you could perfectly balance your Codex internally so that every single unit in it were equally viable, what would you change?
Make formations mandatory. Give everyone formations.
Make sure that all of the formations are thoroughly playtested against each other before release to ensure that the win to loss ratio for each codex is roughly 1 to 1, assuming equal player skill.
Bill1138 wrote: GW's idea of balance has the subtlety of starting or stopping a chainsaw. "One Codex is too popular, better nerf the hell out of it. Another Codex is too unpopular, better give them something virtually unstoppable without fixing their other units."
So if I hypothetically gained complete creative control over GW, and I wanted each codex to be perfectly balanced both internally and externally, where would I start?
Prompt: If you could perfectly balance your Codex internally so that every single unit in it were equally viable, what would you change?
Firstly we need a baseline. The codex i use is Necrons, as every unit in that book has been used in good competitive lists, so that says something right there. Secondly their Decurion is not an Auto Take as it is not automatically better than Objective Secured. I've seen high ranking tournament lists that are CADs and Decurions and one recently that used 3 Monoliths and another that spammed Flayed Ones.
Basically every Unit in the Codex needs a job and it needs to be able to do its job. Now its fine if something else does its job better, but then it should be cheap enough to make it a consideration over the other thing. Take Nobz for example. Nobz used to be a viable option because they where cheaper than Meganobz even with 'eavy Armor and a PK. Now that that isn't true there is literally no reason to take them.
Traditio wrote: Make formations mandatory. Give everyone formations.
Make sure that all of the formations are thoroughly playtested against each other before release to ensure that the win to loss ratio for each codex is roughly 1 to 1, assuming equal player skill.
Thats really hard to achieve, a 40% Win rate with a TAC list should be the goal, as that is far easier.
For the MFDs (or Decurion style Detachments) they need to be as good as Ob Sec, as the CAD should always be a valid option, and the Formations that make them up shouldnt be frelling awesome (this is Eldar's big problem).
As for Codex to Codex Balance? Everything should cost about the same. If a Meganob is 40 Points a Terminator should be 35 as he doesnt have a second wound and that 5++ doesnt really compensate. Eldar Windriders are like 27 points or something goofy and an Ork Deffkopta is 30. Yes the Deffkopta has Scout but that doesnt mean he should cost more than a bike with a 3+ armor!
Grimmor wrote: Thats really hard to achieve, a 40% Win rate with a TAC list should be the goal, as that is far easier.
Part of the difficulty is the plurality of options. The easy way to get around this is, again, forcing everyone to use formations (and getting rid of unbound; let's not omit that).
At that point, it's encumbent upon GW to make sure that every formation has exactly an equal chance of winning.
Grimmor wrote: Thats really hard to achieve, a 40% Win rate with a TAC list should be the goal, as that is far easier.
Part of the difficulty is the plurality of options. The easy way to get around this is, again, forcing everyone to use formations (and getting rid of unbound; let's not omit that).
At that point, it's encumbent upon GW to make sure that every formation has exactly an equal chance of winning.
I do agree with you, but even Kings of War, which is extremely well balanced, cant achieve a perfect 1:1 Win ration, and thats because we are playing a game that involves a fair amount of luck. Thus why i feel a 40% win ration is a good goal to strive for, and if you hit higher than that, thats excellent.
Grimmor wrote:I do agree with you, but even Kings of War, which is extremely well balanced, cant achieve a perfect 1:1 Win ration, and thats because we are playing a game that involves a fair amount of luck. Thus why i feel a 40% win ration is a good goal to strive for, and if you hit higher than that, thats excellent.
Eh, I'll not quibble about the point.
But you know, I do think it's humorous that people are so down on formations. In principle, formations have the strongest potential actually to balance the game. The problem currently is that: 1. the formations are not properly balanced and 2. not everyone has them.
With respect to the former:
What unthinking nitwit at GW thought it would be a good idea to give Eldar formations which would enable them to spam scatter bikes and have a wraithknight on the table to boot?
Grimmor wrote:I do agree with you, but even Kings of War, which is extremely well balanced, cant achieve a perfect 1:1 Win ration, and thats because we are playing a game that involves a fair amount of luck. Thus why i feel a 40% win ration is a good goal to strive for, and if you hit higher than that, thats excellent.
Eh, I'll not quibble about the point.
But you know, I do think it's humorous that people are so down on formations. In principle, formations have the strongest potential actually to balance the game. The problem currently is that: 1. the formations are not properly balanced and 2. not everyone has them.
With respect to the former:
What unthinking nitwit at GW thought it would be a good idea to give Eldar formations which would enable them to spam scatter bikes and have a wraithknight on the table to boot?
The biggest issue with the Eldar formations, as i see them, is that they have no "Tax" and the bonus they grant is to general.
Aspect Warriors for example. Take 3 Squads, get +1 BS. What was the downside again?
Khorne Daemonkin is another example of a well written MFD, as most of its problems are with its units, not the Formations. The Slaughtercult makes you take a unit of Possessed, but you get a second Boon when you use your Blood Tithe points. Thats awesome, and all for the price of one Possessed unit, which arent even all that awful, they just look awful because they are fighting for slots. Ok they probably are a bit overpriced, but thats easy to fix.
You'd figure out what scale of game you want and decide how detailed the interactions will be based on that. Then you streamline certain aspects, re-work the USR system, and fix how armies are constructed. Decide on one common method. I'm personally a fan of the FoC, where you can offer a variety of generic FoCs for all armies to pick from.
From there, you pick a baseline. Make that codex. Then, every other codex gets designed with a particular design goal and balanced by the standard. Play test vigorously with all units at all point levels. Do it dozens of times with a number of different people. Then open it up to the public. Get thousands of people testing your game. Get the feedback. Go back and revise. Repeat. When feedback gets down to people bitching about 5pts differences in what the ideal cost should be, you're good.
Change the release schedule to update models for most factions on a monthly basis. Release all the codices together so each one is balanced against the other, without the huge lag from the first to the last codex.
Also, separate the Sales department from the game design department. That itself would help a lot with the power pendulum.
Hence "gradual." Since a lot of 7th Maelstrom (and modified scenarios) awards points for capping pre-determined objectives at randomized locations, there's more emphasis on zipping forward and capping objectives for the scope of a single turn, and less emphasis on being able to "hold" over a series of turns. Last year at ITC, not a single Tactical Marine made the "Top 8" armies. Bikers, Gravstars, Podding IG Vets, and Flyrants, sure. But podding Grey Hunters were the closest thing to a Tacmarine.
Besides tweaking points costs/having rules for infantry to "resurrect/reinforce", allow "Running" models to move at fixed bonus speed. There's a dramatic difference between Move 6+D6, vs Move 12" + an additional 24" or an additional 36.
Likewise, some scenario play should be modified, that objectives grant points for every turn they are held, period (so you don't have "Shoot the enemy then tank shock the survivors off" aka Eldar in 4th and early 5th), and objective markers should be restricted to being placed in the center of the map outside of core deployment zones (to prevent pure gunlines from ruling the day).
I think the simplest fix would be to reintroduce structure. It might not fix all the problems, but it would go a LOOOOONG way towards balance.
I propose reintroducing a 6th ed style of organizing your armies. Bring back Force Organization, limit Formations. Unbound and Come the Apoc allies could be an option, but I would have the main rule book STRESS that those are only for casual play and have no business in "Organized" play. If both players want to play Unbound, both players lists must be Unbound
I would structure armies in 2 ways:
1) "Decurion" super formation Detachments. I know these are considered an issue, but they are the main detachments in so many books now that disallowing them would involve overhauling the whole system, which I would not be a fan of.
I would limit them by requiring your entire army come from this single "super" detachment. No allies, no additional CAD for Ob Sec troops. Your army has it's benefits because it is a well oiled military machine and other units outside of this would disrupt that synergy.
2) If not doing the above, the primary way to run an army would be 1 (and only 1) CAD or special codex detachment (read: no formations). This detachment is mandatory and your warlord must come from it. Afterwards, you can have 1 (and only 1) Allie detachment from a different faction.
Now you may add 0-3 Formations. These MUST be the same faction as either your Primary or Ally.
-------------------------------
I would also make a limit to 1 Super Heavy (GC or SHV) per ARMY. No Double WraithKnights, No Triple Imperial Knights. Any Formations or Detachments that require multiple Super Heavies will be relabeled as Apoc only.
A minor fix to D-weapons: the "6" result would only do D3+1 wounds/hull points with no saves. This will mean the average vehicle or MC will probably die, but anything with 4+ wounds or HPs has a chance to live. Otherwise D-weapons are fine
I like this, except for the Super Heavies restriction. While most GMCs and SHs would be fine this way, i feel its far to harsh to Imp Knights, who where kinda designed to be more toned down SHs anyway. Though i guess we could just retweak Imp Knights.
I wouldn't make the game a codex at a time. I'd make it one category at a time. I'd make all the troops first, and make sure there were no outliers. Then I'd do HQs, etc. Writing an entire codex in a vacuum is how we get the current codices.
I'll wholeheartedly agree with Martel here: all in one fell swoop is probably the way to go. New factions could be bolted on piecemeal, if necessary, but after every one, a rebalance and tweak pass would be made over everything, with errata and digital re-releases as necessary.
GWs biggest problem is they don't envision/playtest enough to come up with the worst combos. They will never balance anything until you have someone looking over the writers shoulder and pointing out how something could be used in an unintended way. I remember reading an interview years ago with one of the developers almost sheepishly admitting that no one thought lash of submission would be used in the manner that become the most common, (putting people in a cluster to be battle cannoned to death). They write rules that sound cool in their head but don't think about complex interactions. Allies and formations have only made this worse.
Starcraft has thousands of hours of metadata to sift through. Back in SC II beta, roaches had two base armor, which made them way too good. GW would never catch that kind of error.
Given that the 'worst' armies at the moment are the hoard based armies, (ignore CSM for now)... i'd rank the codex 'powers' as follows:
Eldar
Necron, Space Marine, Chaos Demons,
Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, Tau
Blood Angels, Space Wolves,
Imperial guard, Orks, Chaos Marines (ignore for now)
Those with the most expensive models on average sit at the top, the cheapest models on average at the bottom (pretty linear?). Therefore, the simplist solution, seems to be to reduce every model by 1 pt. This would greatly benefit orks and imperial guard, and hardly impact the top armies whatsoever.
I wish you people would stop buying GW's over priced codex and rule books. The more you buy the more you tell them it is ok to over charge us and write 200 pages of fluff in a 300 page rule book.
In an ideal world, the rules and point costs and what ever would be made available free online and updated regularly on their main website to shut down under costed and over powered unit exploits, but GW is a business so that is never going to happen.
If GW says they are a miniature modeling company first and foremost, and they insist that it is not their job to make a well balanced and fun game then it is time we treat them as such. Do not buy their rules. Don't pay or even use their garbage rules.
I wish I had the time and energy and experience and expertise to re-write wh40k from the ground up making it into a faster paced game that scales up with hundreds of models among all codex including forgeworld. And at the same time keep it relatively balanced and sport like. I would post it free here in the hopes that people become interested and actually adopt the rules and play it over wh40k. But not in my life time. Zagman made a huge effort to rebalancing all the codex points. We need more players who are that dedicated.
Martel732 wrote: Starcraft has thousands of hours of metadata to sift through. Back in SC II beta, roaches had two base armor, which made them way too good. GW would never catch that kind of error.
I think a large part of the problem is they seem to develop every unit in a vacuum.
I'll use a strong unit as an example
Grav Cents are very good for what they do but they are expensive and do have weaknesses, as they are slow, mid ranged and have no invul. Great unit but not inherently broken. But add in a grey knight Lib or two and suddenly all those weaknesses go away.
Ffyllotek wrote: Given that the 'worst' armies at the moment are the hoard based armies, (ignore CSM for now)... i'd rank the codex 'powers' as follows:
Eldar
Necron, Space Marine, Chaos Demons,
Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, Tau
Blood Angels, Space Wolves,
Imperial guard, Orks, Chaos Marines (ignore for now)
I noticed that you didn't mention Grey Knights at all. Do they not even register as a factor any more?
Ffyllotek wrote: Given that the 'worst' armies at the moment are the hoard based armies, (ignore CSM for now)... i'd rank the codex 'powers' as follows:
Eldar
Necron, Space Marine, Chaos Demons,
Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, Tau
Blood Angels, Space Wolves,
Imperial guard, Orks, Chaos Marines (ignore for now)
Those with the most expensive models on average sit at the top, the cheapest models on average at the bottom (pretty linear?). Therefore, the simplist solution, seems to be to reduce every model by 1 pt. This would greatly benefit orks and imperial guard, and hardly impact the top armies whatsoever.
What we do for CSM not sure.
Honestly id move Chaos Daemons, Blood Angels and Dark Eldar down a level each. Chaos Daemons and Dark Eldar really only have one maybe two viable builds, and Blood Angels dont even have that.
Martel732 wrote: Chaos demons have powerful builds, though. Move Tau up, though.
Ya, like 2 of them. One is Tzeentch Summoning and the other is either the Screamstar or the Seekerstar and both of the last two are falling out of favor. And if we are fixing 40k Summoning has to go. Yes its cool and fluffy but its so god broken! You could fix it by letting you summon models that have been removed as a casualty, thereby preventing people from summoning like 500 points of free stuff.
The single biggest issue with GW codices has almost always been that GW will not stick to the same design style for an entire update cycle...
In 3rd edition, when they were re-building the game in it's entirety, we got more simplified codices that were half the size they had previously been.
Overall, the only glaring issues were that Eldar (yet again) were a marked step above everyone, while Chaos Marines & Chaos Lite (aka: Dark Angels) were very noticeably underpowered. Otherwise, the power levels were mostly pretty even.
Then GW released the hallowed 3.5ed Chaos Marine codex, whish turned codex design on its head and went from 'keep it simple stupid', to 'super fluffy, unique & powerful!'
Guard quickly followed with their pre-4th ed Doctrines book, while we also had the likes of the Armageddon & Eye of Terror books that expanded further upon designing highly unique armies with 'oodles of options.
This left pretty much every early to mid 3rd ed book, bar Eldar of course, in the dust. The options just weren't there to keep pace with the newer & much more highly individualised and adaptable books.
Early 4th saw the coming of Chapter Traits for Marines, then an expanded Black Templars book, and a polished up Tau codex.
Unfortunately, about this time, Jervis decided to stick his nose where it didn't belong, and had the disastrous epiphany that the rules were getting too complex and needed the 'difficulty' level in the rules needed massive reigning in.
So, we got the "poopfecta" of 4th ed Chaos Marines, Dark Angels, & Eldar - all of which literally had their souls torn from them and left as bare, hollow shells of their former selves.
Orks & Daemons got in on the back end of this abysmal design style, though they at least were given a few more options than the above.
Then GW ratcheted everything up to the nines with the 5th ed Space Marine codex, followed by equally powering up Blood Angels, Space Wolves (not that they needed it), Guard & Dark Eldar (who really deserved it after being forgotten for so damn long!)
Necrons & Chaos Marines were of similar design, and had we stayed longer in 5th edition, the balance issues would have started to really even out.
Now 7.1ed, we had books that began to introduce the fluffier aspects of the old 3.5ed CSM codex, in the form of Formations & unique FOC's for each army.
Of course, it didn't last for long, as GW saw a way to generate added sales, and hence, starting with Necrons, we were introduced to the Decurion style of detachments. Too bad for the earlier books such as BA's/GK/DE+Covens/Orks/Clowns/Ad Mech et all.
If GW would just stick to one single plan and get every army designed on that level, balance overall would vastly improve!!
Yes, they'll always be a top dog and a bottom feeder. It's inevitable. However, if/once everyone gets their Decurion style update, the currently massive divide between the top vs. the bottom ends books won't be anywhere near as awful.
While Eldar for example are definitely the top dog of the 7.5 styled books, overall, the balance between the rest of them is pretty decent. Khornekin for example which is typically seen as the weakest, (due to the fact that none of the issue Chaos currently faces were addresses), it can still hang with the big boys.
What you say is true, but the Daemon, SW and Ork Decurions are absolutely awful. But i see your point. If those books had been designed with MFDs in mind this wouldnt be an issue
Martel732 wrote: Chaos demons have powerful builds, though. Move Tau up, though.
Ya, like 2 of them. One is Tzeentch Summoning and the other is either the Screamstar or the Seekerstar and both of the last two are falling out of favor. And if we are fixing 40k Summoning has to go. Yes its cool and fluffy but its so god broken! You could fix it by letting you summon models that have been removed as a casualty, thereby preventing people from summoning like 500 points of free stuff.
Also ya, Tau can compete on SM and Necron teir
I'd keep summoning, but change the mechanics a lot.
Grimmor wrote: What you say is true, but the Daemon, SW and Ork Decurions are absolutely awful. But i see your point. If those books had been designed with MFDs in mind this wouldnt be an issue
The bonuses for the actual Decruion for Daemons especially, and SW's are really, really good! The problem is in the Core formations they're saddled with...
For Daemons, you simply need too many redundant units, due to every formation requiring an number of units equal to their relevant God's sacred number.
For Puppies, they need their pts adjusted to 7.5ed standards, while the 'named' Companies like the Daemon Core options, simply require too many base units.
Martel732 wrote: Chaos demons have powerful builds, though. Move Tau up, though.
Ya, like 2 of them. One is Tzeentch Summoning and the other is either the Screamstar or the Seekerstar and both of the last two are falling out of favor. And if we are fixing 40k Summoning has to go. Yes its cool and fluffy but its so god broken! You could fix it by letting you summon models that have been removed as a casualty, thereby preventing people from summoning like 500 points of free stuff.
Also ya, Tau can compete on SM and Necron teir
I'd keep summoning, but change the mechanics a lot.
The problem with summoning is that you could be playing a 1500 point game with over 2000 points of models, and that is not ok. Its why i hape the War Convo though not as much as the Gladius, as all the War Convo did is let you bring a Knight. If you strip the tax units (Ruststalkers, Infiltrators and the Dragoon) you just paid for that Knight. In the case of the Gladius, if you grab all Drop Pods you come out ahead like 200 points over the Tax units. In short your playing a 1500 point game with 1800 points of dudes. That is bad game design.
The bonuses for the actual Decruion for Daemons especially, and SW's are really, really good! The problem is in the Core formations they're saddled with...
For Daemons, you simply need too many redundant units, due to every formation requiring an number of units equal to their relevant God's sacred number. For Puppies, they need their pts adjusted to 7.5ed standards, while the 'named' Companies like the Daemon Core options, simply require too many base units.
And thus they are bad Decurions. If your Core choices are so bad as to be unplayable, i dont care how good the bonuses are.
Martel732 wrote: Chaos demons have powerful builds, though. Move Tau up, though.
Ya, like 2 of them. One is Tzeentch Summoning and the other is either the Screamstar or the Seekerstar and both of the last two are falling out of favor. And if we are fixing 40k Summoning has to go. Yes its cool and fluffy but its so god broken! You could fix it by letting you summon models that have been removed as a casualty, thereby preventing people from summoning like 500 points of free stuff.
Given that the point of this discussion is balancing the different factions, I'd say that summoning needs to go, because it's unfair when one faction can simply bring in more units above the agreed point limit, and I don't see any way of balancing that.
Bill1138 wrote: Given that the point of this discussion is balancing the different factions, I'd say that summoning needs to go, because it's unfair when one faction can simply bring in more units above the agreed point limit, and I don't see any way of balancing that.
Thats why i recommended changing it from bring in brand new units, to bring back models that have been removed as casualties. Other armies already do this (Retribution Phalanx for Crons, Skyblight for Nids) and while you can do it whenever you want, it has more risk than the other two.
Fix the core of the game and work up from there and all the armies at the same time instead of individually and isolated.
There are a lot of problems and interaction issues like allies and the differences between vehicles and MC and even psychic powers
Personally think allies, D weapons, super heavies and some other stuff should be unlocked through Taxs or formations.
cover and fliers i feel need some tuning.
And all codexs need to be redone at the same time by the same person with no bias towards one side or the other.
It still wont be perfect but it would be closer.
Edit: Oh and a re tuning of the combat system. things like why on earth do you cap off at a 3+ to hit, and charging distances and movement penalties need to be fixed. its a lot of penalties over just shooting.
The bonuses for the actual Decruion for Daemons especially, and SW's are really, really good! The problem is in the Core formations they're saddled with...
For Daemons, you simply need too many redundant units, due to every formation requiring an number of units equal to their relevant God's sacred number.
For Puppies, they need their pts adjusted to 7.5ed standards, while the 'named' Companies like the Daemon Core options, simply require too many base units.
And thus they are bad Decurions. If your Core choices are so bad as to be unplayable, i dont care how good the bonuses are.
Except they're not actively bad, they're simply not quite as efficient as the best of the best. (aka: Gladius/Lion's Blade of 'free transports for all!')
Khorne can spam the crap out of Flesh Hounds - one of the single best units in the Daemon codex.
Tzeentch can spam Exalted Flamers & min-sized Flamers, with only 3 'tax' unit of Horrors for WC generation. And suddenly they're also throwing around S7 Witchfires! Nurgle can spam min-sized Nurgling swarms for table control, (due to Infiltrate), and a single larger unit of FnP Plaguebearers.
Slaanesh is the only big loser, as you really, really don't want 6 units of 'Nettes/Fiends.
The Auxiliaries are frankly disgustingly good between the Slaanesh Chariot fest (that also includes a Seekerstar), a single cheap unit of Furies, and/or the Grinder formation... Then just flavour with big boys and/or pad out your Heralds with a small CAD.
I'm actually pretty confident that within a couple of months, we'll be inundated here about how Daemons and our suddenly declared OP new stuff from CotW is yet again, the "death of competitive 40k." (because there's really no hate quite like Daemon hate!)
Bill1138 wrote: Given that the point of this discussion is balancing the different factions, I'd say that summoning needs to go, because it's unfair when one faction can simply bring in more units above the agreed point limit, and I don't see any way of balancing that.
I'll agree to give up my Summoning, (which is full of risk and prevents me from using all kinds of other abilities), when Marines agree to pay for their damn transports! Summoning is what Daemons get in place of equally obnoxious crap like Superfriends(tm), free transports, Scatbikes/Wraithknights, sharing Markerlights, etc...
Take that away from us, while everyone else gets to keep their toys and you're just saying that Daemons players aren't allowed to have nice things because you hate Chaos players being able to compete.
Khorne can spam the crap out of Flesh Hounds - one of the single best units in the Daemon codex.
Tzeentch can spam Exalted Flamers & min-sized Flamers, with only 3 'tax' unit of Horrors for WC generation. And suddenly they're also throwing around S7 Witchfires! Nurgle can spam min-sized Nurgling swarms for table control, (due to Infiltrate), and a single larger unit of FnP Plaguebearers.
Slaanesh is the only big loser, as you really, really don't want 6 units of 'Nettes/Fiends.
The Auxiliaries are frankly disgustingly good between the Slaanesh Chariot fest (that also includes a Seekerstar), a single cheap unit of Furies, and/or the Grinder formation... Then just flavour with big boys and/or pad out your Heralds with a small CAD.
I'm actually pretty confident that within a couple of months, we'll be inundated here about how Daemons and our suddenly declared OP new stuff from CotW is yet again, the "death of competitive 40k." (because there's really no hate quite like Daemon hate!)
Khorne doesnt care cuz he has Daemonkin. The Exalted Flamers are hosed cuz its weapon is Heavy so they can't move on top of that who care about Witchfires? Witchfires suck. Especially Tzeentchs "Lets hand out FnP" "GENIUS!!!"
Nurgle and Slaanesh get by because they need less and Nurgle doesnt mind bringin that many bodies. Ya Slaanesh is annoyed but they've also got the cheapest core an I 5 Rending isn't awful, plus Seekerstar. Slaaneshes biggest draw is that you can run it without the other gods, thus making Warpstorm better for you.
I have no confidence that we will here how "amazing" that hot mess is, because, frankly, the Tzeentch CAD is doing better with much less waste.
To balance the game, they need to figure out a fair cost for each unit, and extensively test it. Then, get rid of or limit allies and get rid of formation buffs entirely. The current balance problems in the game stem from units that are poorly costed (scatterbikes, wraithknights) and units that are buffed well beyond their points costs (thunderwolves, grav cents).
Bill1138 wrote: Given that the point of this discussion is balancing the different factions, I'd say that summoning needs to go, because it's unfair when one faction can simply bring in more units above the agreed point limit, and I don't see any way of balancing that.
I'll agree to give up my Summoning, (which is full of risk and prevents me from using all kinds of other abilities), when Marines agree to pay for their damn transports! Summoning is what Daemons get in place of equally obnoxious crap like Superfriends(tm), free transports, Scatbikes/Wraithknights, sharing Markerlights, etc...
Take that away from us, while everyone else gets to keep their toys and you're just saying that Daemons players aren't allowed to have nice things because you hate Chaos players being able to compete.
Perhaps you missed this, but the point of this thread is getting as many rational people as I can to voice their opinions as to how best fix the game's balance.
Last I checked, Space Marines still had to pay points for their transports, so your snarky ultimatum doesn't make much sense, especially since no one is proposing taking the daemons' toys away from them. The suggestion was to rebuild all of the Codexes from the ground-up, so they're all balanced, without the need to bring in extra units above the agreed point limit.
If we're gonna talk Daemon specific fixes i would like my 4e Pink Horros back, you know the ones that had a shooting attack that wasn't trash? Other than that im not sure, the Daemon codex is weird as its so focused on melee, but not super good at it unless you're Khorne, i mean Nurgle gets by on sheer durability but Slaanesh is kinda sitting in the cold having to rely on Rending.
Khorne can spam the crap out of Flesh Hounds - one of the single best units in the Daemon codex.
Tzeentch can spam Exalted Flamers & min-sized Flamers, with only 3 'tax' unit of Horrors for WC generation. And suddenly they're also throwing around S7 Witchfires! Nurgle can spam min-sized Nurgling swarms for table control, (due to Infiltrate), and a single larger unit of FnP Plaguebearers.
Slaanesh is the only big loser, as you really, really don't want 6 units of 'Nettes/Fiends.
The Auxiliaries are frankly disgustingly good between the Slaanesh Chariot fest (that also includes a Seekerstar), a single cheap unit of Furies, and/or the Grinder formation... Then just flavour with big boys and/or pad out your Heralds with a small CAD.
I'm actually pretty confident that within a couple of months, we'll be inundated here about how Daemons and our suddenly declared OP new stuff from CotW is yet again, the "death of competitive 40k." (because there's really no hate quite like Daemon hate!)
Khorne doesnt care cuz he has Daemonkin. The Exalted Flamers are hosed cuz its weapon is Heavy so they can't move on top of that who care about Witchfires? Witchfires suck. Especially Tzeentchs "Lets hand out FnP" "GENIUS!!!"
Nurgle and Slaanesh get by because they need less and Nurgle doesnt mind bringin that many bodies. Ya Slaanesh is annoyed but they've also got the cheapest core an I 5 Rending isn't awful, plus Seekerstar. Slaaneshes biggest draw is that you can run it without the other gods, thus making Warpstorm better for you.
I have no confidence that we will here how "amazing" that hot mess is, because, frankly, the Tzeentch CAD is doing better with much less waste.
Exalted Flamers are fine playing the role of 50pts 'gun turret'. D3/S10 shots per when you can run 4-5+ of the buggers is capable of focus firing down pretty much any non-FMC/GMC.
While normally the Tzeentch Witchfires don't amount to much, with the (mandatory) Exalted Locus Tzherald, they suddenly become S7 with the formation. That's definitely a nice tool for going Razorback hunting, especially considering that GSF right now is a huge problem for Daemons in general.
It's not Gladius good. But it's not complete trash either. Going completely 'bare bones', you can run;
Tzherald w/Lv3, Exalt Locus, Paradox
3x 11 Pink Horrors
6x Exalted Flamers
= 742pts
Spend the rest of your pts on a Greater, and then Grinders/Slaany auxiliary formation.
It actually looks to have some serious potential, especially with a guaranteed automatic Summoning per turn!
What if for all of the Codexes we start by objectively applying point values (or modifiers) for every stat-line, ability, and piece of wargear in the game, so that every unit for every faction has its points calculated the same way?
ex:
Each Stat Line has a base cost (stat lines normal for grunts would cost less than those typically seen only on HQs)
Each Armor type has a base cost, with a modifier based on the model's Toughness and number of Wounds.
Each Melee weapon has a base cost, with a modifier based on the model's Strength and number of Attacks.
Each Ranged weapon has a base cost, with a modifier based on the model's Ballistic Skill
etc.
Martel732 wrote: That doesn't work because of synergistic stats. Each combination has to be empirically determined.
Care to clarify? If a unit has (Ws4, Bs4, S4, T4, W1, I4, A1, Ld8), that should have the same value in any army. The extra wargear and abilities would all have costs/modifiers which reflect how they interact.
For starters, a master points-cost list to compare everything with.
i.e. the base statline for infantry (4s all around, LD8 1 attack) starts at 6pts. Lowering 1 stat by 1 brings them down to a 5pt (2 for 4pts etc). Increasing it bumps their price by 2 per stat point. Armor is free, 1pt, 2pts, 4pts, 6pts, 12pts for a 6+ 5+ 4+ 3+ and 2+ respectively. Im not going to go into massive detail but i think i got the point across. Theres a massive point differential between codexes right now on some units because there is no inner point-cost system like this, as a result we get crap like 16pt Burna Boyz for some god awful reason.
It would be a very large list and would take a lot of playtesting to balance it right, but it would give one hell of a foundation. The main problem is finding the points gap for some stats (such as 2+ armor being vastly better than 3+ for only 1 digit difference) and justifying codex-specific rules and wargear costs (not reworded close combat weapons either, i mean crap like special guns or such)
I would base everything off fluff and what it was meant to truly do in the world of 40k. And use a D10 system to get proper ratios and Stat representation. Also get rid of the core special rules and give rule as such to unit on a as needed basis. Special rules are slowing the game down I think.
Martel732 wrote: That doesn't work because of synergistic stats. Each combination has to be empirically determined.
Care to clarify? If a unit has (Ws4, Bs4, S4, T4, W1, I4, A1, Ld8), that should have the same value in any army. The extra wargear and abilities would all have costs/modifiers which reflect how they interact.
Strength is more valuable on a unit with higher WS. Identical stat lines should cost the same, but almost nothing has identical stat lines.
Ffyllotek wrote: Given that the 'worst' armies at the moment are the hoard based armies, (ignore CSM for now)... i'd rank the codex 'powers' as follows:
Eldar
Necron, Space Marine, Chaos Demons,
Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, Tau
Blood Angels, Space Wolves,
Imperial guard, Orks, Chaos Marines (ignore for now)
Those with the most expensive models on average sit at the top, the cheapest models on average at the bottom (pretty linear?). Therefore, the simplist solution, seems to be to reduce every model by 1 pt. This would greatly benefit orks and imperial guard, and hardly impact the top armies whatsoever.
EnTyme wrote: You forgot about Tyranids. Then again, so did GW.
Im not even sure where id put Nids in a power list. I mean they are better off than Orks and CSm, thats for sure, as Shield of Baal actually gave them fairly useful Formations. Lictoshame is still viable, Skyblight is good and Penta Flyrant is still horrifying,. On top of this Warrior spam is coming back. Despite all this Nids are still in a weird spot and most of their Troops are just lousy, now if Genestealers had a 4+ armor......
EnTyme wrote: You forgot about Tyranids. Then again, so did GW.
Im not even sure where id put Nids in a power list. I mean they are better off than Orks and CSm, thats for sure, as Shield of Baal actually gave them fairly useful Formations. Lictoshame is still viable, Skyblight is good and Penta Flyrant is still horrifying,. On top of this Warrior spam is coming back. Despite all this Nids are still in a weird spot and most of their Troops are just lousy, now if Genestealers had a 4+ armor......
We'll have to see what GW does with the (allegedly) upcoming Deathwatch v. Genestealers campaign.
It should just be 1 big release each edition. Each faction getting a few new units or existing models getting major rules overhauls redefining their roles. This way no army gets totally left in the dust like Sisters of Battle.
If they did proper marketing research, they can eliminate formations by firguring what did not sell so well last edition and retooling those models to have a flavor of the edition spin. Or hell just make those units under costed in points but remain the same price.
Vineheart01 wrote: For starters, a master points-cost list to compare everything with.
i.e. the base statline for infantry (4s all around, LD8 1 attack) starts at 6pts. Lowering 1 stat by 1 brings them down to a 5pt (2 for 4pts etc). Increasing it bumps their price by 2 per stat point. Armor is free, 1pt, 2pts, 4pts, 6pts, 12pts for a 6+ 5+ 4+ 3+ and 2+ respectively.
Im not going to go into massive detail but i think i got the point across. Theres a massive point differential between codexes right now on some units because there is no inner point-cost system like this, as a result we get crap like 16pt Burna Boyz for some god awful reason.
It would be a very large list and would take a lot of playtesting to balance it right, but it would give one hell of a foundation. The main problem is finding the points gap for some stats (such as 2+ armor being vastly better than 3+ for only 1 digit difference) and justifying codex-specific rules and wargear costs (not reworded close combat weapons either, i mean crap like special guns or such)
This, a million times, as it's basically what GW did in Rogue Trader for coming you with your own army.
• A roll of 6 on the Destroyer table does d3+3 hull points or wounds instead of d6+6. Saves may not be taken.
o Destroyer weapons do not roll on the vehicle damage chart in addition to the Destroyer table against non superheavy vehicles.
• Beasts may embark on the transports normally, but may not move more than 6” when disembarking.
• Any model that is a character in a unit receives 1 additional wound as well as any other benefits, to a max of 3W. Codex Eldar, Skitarii, and Harlequins do not gain this benefit.
• Custom units created with the V.D.R. may be used, but the stats should be run by your opponent and Tony beforehand for approval.
• Storm bolters may be fired as a heavy 3 weapon instead of assault 2. The heavy 3 option may not be used for snapshots.
• Monstrous Creatures only get cover if 25% obscured or more.
• All missile launchers gain their flakk equivalent upgrade for free if available.
• Stealth: Models that target units with the stealth usr with ranged attacks take a -1 penalty to their Ballistic skill. This replaces the normal benefit.
• Shrouded: Models that target units with the shrouded usr with ranged attacks take a -2 penalty to their Ballistics skill. This replaces the normal benefit.
• Smoke launchers may be used when the unit equipped with it is targeted. This replaces the normal benefit (still one use only)
• Ignores Cover: Units with this special rule don’t take the B.S. penalty for firing at units with the stealth or shrouded special rules. This is in addition to the normal benefit.
• Models with the relentless and slow and purposeful rules as well as all vehicles do not ignore the range penalty for moving and firing weapons with the salvo special rule
• Any unit attacking a unit under the benefit of the “invisibility” psychic power are treated as having failed a blind test, even if they would normally be immune. This replaces the normal benefit.
• Psyckers in a unit are treated as independent models for the purposes of casting powers and generating warp charges
• Flying monstrous creatures that arrive via deepstrike may choose to be swooping or gliding when they arrive.
• Vehicles with the “heavy” type ignore the penalties for firing ordinance weapons
• Non superheavy walkers may add 2 to the maximum unit size listed in their entries unless they are unique units. All walkers may add 2 to their attack profile. Codexes released from the necron codex and after do not gain this benefit.
• Poison and sniper weapons take no penalty to wounding gargantuan creatures
• Weapons with the “primary” special rule ignore a weapon destroyed result inflicted against them on a 4+
• Super heavy walkers and gargantuan monstrous creatures that use the “smash” ability to trade their attacks for a single attack treat that single attack as strength D instead of the normal benefits
• If a superheavy vehicle or gargantuan monstrous creature is a transport, it is always considered an assault transport.
• Superheavy vehicles take damage from the vehicle damage table with the following changes
o Ignore the crew shaken and crew stunned result
o Immobilized results lower their speed by half. Multiple immobilized results do not lower this further, but do add the extra hullpoint loss as normal
• If a unit is embarked in a transport and is subject to the “no escape” rule, the unit inside may use any invulnerable save available to the transport.
• Haywire weapons have the following effect, do not roll for armor penetration as you normally would. When a vehicle is hit with a weapon with the haywire special rule, roll 1d6 and consult the following table
o 1: no effect
o 2-5: the vehicle suffers a grew shaken result on the vehicle damage table
o 6: the vehicle suffers from a penalty rolled on the vehicle damage table
These effects do not cause hullpoint loss. This replaces the normal benefit
*ordinance weapons cause d3 wounds instead of one versus monstrous creatures.
*ap1 weapons that successfully wound a monstrous creature may roll to wound that creature again. This does not trigger on the second roll.
Chaos Space Marines
• Aspiring champions and Aspiring Sorcerers can take terminator armor for 15 points.
• When a character from the army issues or accepts a challenge, roll on the Chaos Boon Table immediately (instead of afterward). Ibf the character is fighting in a challenge with a unique character, add +1 to the tens dice for determining the Boon (max of 6).
• If your Warlord is an HQ or Lord of War and has purchased a mark from the Chaos Gods, then a single troop unit from this Codex gains the same mark for free. This troop may not have more than one mark, and if the warlord has multiple marks the player chooses which is given before deployment.
• Rhinos may take assault ramps as an upgrade for 10 points. This makes them assault vehicles
• Abbadon is a Lord of War.
• Rhinos may be selected as a fast attack choice.
• If a character becomes a Daemon Prince via the Dark Apotheosis it retains any wargear options that the Demon Prince could have chosen.
• If a model with daemonic possession would consume a vehicle it is transporting, that vehicle suffers a glancing hit instead.
• Ahriman may take powers from the divination school
• Use the basic stat line for rhino based tanks you already have access to from the codex spacemarine book. Your optional upgrades remain the same.
• All units that begin the game in terminator armor have their points reduced by 5 each
Chaos Daemons
• If your entire army is composed of daemons with the same Daemonic alignment you may treat a roll of 7 on the warpstorm as the attack power associated with your god.
• Fateweaver is a Lord of War.
• The flickering fire psychic power gains the number of shots listed based on how many warp charges were successfully harnessed when firing the power.
• Daemons of tzeench gain a +1 bonus when attempting to cast a psychic power (meaning they normally harness a warp charge on a 3+)
• Daemons gain a +1 bonus when attempting to cast psychic powers from their gods psychic discipline
Eldar
• Eldar jetbikes only give a 4+ armor save
• Scatterlasers have a 24” range
• Eldar missile launchers have a 36” range
• Warp Spiders may only use their flicker jump special rules once per player turn and may not use it against overwatch.
• The warlock conclave does not generate warp charges based on its mastery level.
Dark Eldar
• Hellions can use their jump packs in the movement and assault phase.
• Wyches get their agile invulnerable save during the assault phase, (not just the combat sub phase) and may disembark from transports that moved cruising speed.
• Units equipped with combat drugs count the turn as being one higher on the power from pain table
• If an hq unit with the independent character rule has the option for a venom as a dedicated transport, the venom gains the “chariot” type and has their transport capacity reduced to 1. (invulnerable saves purchased/ used by the character do not confer to the transport)
• Named characters from the 5th edition codex may be used for the point totals listed with the following changes.
o Asdrubael Vect: has the labyrinthine cunning warlord trait and an additional roll on any warlord trait table in the BRB o Lady Malys: roll twice on the warlord trait table in the dark elder codex
o Duke Ssliscus: has the towering arrogance warlord trait. He also grants a reroll for scatter for any venom, raider, or ravager that enters play from deepstrike reserves
o Baron Sarthonix: has the soul thirst warlord trait and doesn’t change the position of hellions in the force organization chart
Tyranids
• Tyranid prime has an additional wound and may take wings (changing its type to jump infantry) for 10 points.
• Models that have the instinctive behavior rule that are within Range of a synapse creature gain a +1 to feel no pain (6+ feel no pain if they did not already have the rule)
• The Swarmlord is a Lord of War and grants the swarmleader benefit to all models within 18”
• Gene stealers have stealth.
• Shadows in the warp cause all enemy psykers to manifest psychic powers at a -1 penalty (normally 5+) in addition to the penalty to Leadership.
• Pyrovores breath weapon gains the torrent special rule
Adepta Sorroritas
• Saint Celestine is a Lord of War.
• Canoness is 5 points cheaper.
• Sisters Repentia gain Crusader.
• The Rhino and Immolator may be selected as fast attack options.
• The penitent engine has hatred.
• The exorcist fires snapshots at BS2 and may be fielded in units of 1-3
Astra Militarum
• Commisar Yarick is a Lord of War.
• Chimera, Taurox and Taurox Primes may be selected as fast attack choices.
• When a conscript unit is removed as a casualty, an identical unit goes into ongoing reserve on a 4+.
• The taurox prime has the command vehicle trait
• Rough riders have an additional wound each
• Vox casters give the following benefit: if a command squad and the target of an order it is issuing are both equipped with vox casters, add 12 inches to the maximum command range and the units do not require line of sight
• Tempestas scion units have one higher leadership
Militarum Tempestas
• Any unit embarked in a flyer chosen from this detachment, and any units placed in deep strike reserves may begin arriving from reserves starting in turn one. They must be rolled for normally.
• Gain all the relevant bonuses listed above
Orks
• Cybork body gives a +1 to feel no pain rolls (or a 6+ feel no pain, if the model doesn’t already have feel no pain).
• Kustom Megadreds from Forgeworld have 4 hull points instead of 3.
• Lootas may take a looted wagon as a dedicated transport.
• Boss nobz are Ld8 instead of 7
• All non superheavy walkers that don’t have the “cowardly grots” rule gain “ ‘ere we go!” rule
blood angels, spacewolves, and grey knights
• Use the basic stat line for rhino based tanks you already have access to from the codex spacemarine book. Your optional upgrades remain the same. Baal predators gain the same squadron size and benefit as predators and may be fielded in units of up to 3.
• Spacewolf dreadnaughts gain counter attack. Blood angel dreadnaughts gain furious charge.
• All units that begin the game in terminator armor have their points reduced by 5 each
• Blood angel scouts use the stat line and point values from codex spacemarine
• Wolfscouts gain stealth
Necrons
• The canoptic harvest formation gives feel no pain instead of reanimation protocols
• Necron wraiths are toughness 4
and an errata for point totals on most vehicles and monstrous creatures in the game
Spoiler:
Eratta
tyranids
• Monstrous biocannons have their point costs changed to the following: twinlinked devourer with brainleach worms 25 points. Twin linked deathspitter, same. Stranglethorn cannon, 10 points. Heavy venom cannon, 15 points
• Hive tyrants point total raises to 185 points
• Old one eye is now 140 points
• Tervigon becomes 155 points
• Haruspex becomes 120 points
• Harpy becomes150 points
• Hive crone stays the same
• Carnifex becomes 86 points
• Trygon becomes 170
• Trygon prime becomes205 points
• Mawlock becomes 140 points
• Exocrine becomes 105 points
• Tyrannofex becomes 105 points and the upgrade to rupture cannon only costs 5 points
• Barbed hierodule: 477 points
• Harridan: 644 points
• Hierophant biotitan: the titanfield becomes a 3+ invul save
Titan legions
• Reaver battle titan 627, choose two weapons from the following list
o Titan powerfist 82
o Gattling blaster 210
o Laserblaster 245
o Melta cannon 250
o Volcano cannon 365
Choose one weapon from the following list
o Apocalypse missile launcher 85
o Vortex missile 85
o Vulcan mega bolter 130
o Double barrel turbolaser destructor 190
o Plasma blastgun 290
o Inferno gun 235
• Warhound titan 372, choose two weapons from the following list
o Vulcan megabolter 130
o Double barrel turbolaser destructor 190
o Plasma blastgun 290
o Inferno gun 235
Chaos marines
(with this setup, monstrous creatures with the “demonforge” rule lose a wound instead of a hullpoint when they roll a “1” after activation, explode when they lose their last wound just like a vehicle would due to an explodes result, and are allowed to fire one more weapon than usual when shooting)
• Khorne Lord of Skulls: add gaze of pain (24’ S10 ap1 heavy 2) init 4, and 3 hullpoints
• Forge fiend (becomes a monstrous creature with 4 wounds @ toughness7 3+ save) 165
• Maulerfiend (becomes a monstrous creature with 4 wounds @ toughness7 3+ save) 140
• Defiler (becomes a monstrous creature with 5 wounds @ toughness7 3+ save) 195
• Helldrake (becomes a flying monstrous creature with 4 wounds @ toughness7 3+ save) 175
• Daemon prince 105
• Hellbrute (4A base) 100
• Land raider 250
• Vindicator 95
• Predator 75
• Rhino 35
Chaos daemons
• Skarbrand 225
• Kairos Fateweaver 300
• Kugath the plaguefather 190
• Lord of change 210
• Great unclean one 145
• Keeper of secrets 190
• Daemon prince 105
• Blood throne of khorne 80
• Soulgrinder (t7, 2+ 5w monstrous creature) 140
• Skullcannon of khorne 100
• Burning chariot of tzeench 45
• Seeker chariot of slaanesh 35
• Exalted seeker chariot of slaanesh 60
• Hellflayer of slaanesh 40
This was done using a system I've been refining for the over a year now, my goal is to make vehicles and monstrous creatures balanced more effectively against one another and the infantry running around them. Any codex not listed there was unavailable to me for a while, or i simply forgot to check it for special vehicles. same with any vehicles, it was a lot of work, I know I missed stuff!
Edit: forgot to add my rules for ap1 and ordinance weapons in regards to their effect against monstrous creatures.
you would need to do a lot, the BRB would need to serious re-write itself to make cc and shooting more even, wed need to lock back up the pandroas box that is stregnth d and apocalypse units. we can then work on other things more focused on army books and the way they make there armies or the way things mechanically work in their armies. to be upfront a lot of the stuff in codecies for 7th edition has been really phoned in. either they were try harding the feth out of writing the book or they didnt put any effort at all and put out a piece of rotten grok meat on a tin tray and expected us to like it.
40k as a whole is a mess and the effort required would be greater then any one of us could achieve.
and then youd need to playtest all of it so theres probably even more changes that need to come out of this. 40k has sadly become a bloated old man, with a massive hernia and blindness, and bad hands from sugar diabetus. the sad part is it didnt need to be this way, but a company over there in nottingham lost sight of making a game fun for anyone and making some of the money some of the time in a quest to make all the money right away. they sold our games soul to the immortal dollar and have filled the void with a garbadge can full of waste
On the topic of completely re-working the core rules, on top of releasing re-written and re-balanced versions of all Codexes... What if instead of having Wound models and AV models, and so many rules which apply to one or the other, re instead have one system that works like the vehicles AV, but applies to everything? For simplicity, I'll refer to this as Armor Class (AC)
This change should simplify the rules for dealing damage, and speed up combat, because it removes most saving throws by incorporating them into the Difficulty Class (DC) for the attacker.
Every unit will have a base AC which represents its innate durability. Instead of having Armor Saves and Invulnerable Saves which function in a vaccume, I would have these act as modifiers on the base AC (If a character has an energy shield and Power Armor, he should be more resilient to everything than a character with just the Power Armor). This should also speed up combat, because this removes most of the Saves from the game (Cover Saves would remain).
Note, the following is assuming that Weapons and relevant Special Rules, will be changed to accommodate the new system and that some units will have their durability adjusted up or down for balancing (this is just a starting point).
Invulnerable modifier (Full modifier for first, subsequent Invulnerable Saves available to the Character only apply a +1 modifier)
6++ ~ +1
5++ ~ +2
4++ ~ +3
3++ ~ +4
Ex:
Cover Saves taken as normal.
Guardsman in Flak
T3, Sv 5+ --> AC2 + 2 = 4
Guardsman in Carapace
T3, Sv 4+ --> AC2 + 3 = 5
Space Marine in Scout Armor
T4, Sv 4+ --> AC3 + 3 = 6
Space Marine in Power Armor
T4, Sv 3+ --> AC3 + 4 = 7
Space Marine in Terminator Armor
T4, Sv2+, Inv 5+ --> AC3 + 5 + 2 = 10
Space Marine Chapter Master in Terminator Armor with Storm Shield and Iron Halo.
T4, Sv2+, Inv 3+, (Inv5+) --> AC3 + 5 + 4 + 1 + 1 = 14
(3 for Toughness, +5 for the Armor Save, +4 for the Storm Shield, and +1 each for the Iron Halo, and the armor's Invulnerable Save)
@Bill1138.
I agree with you that the current damage resolution in 40k is a horrid kludge of separate systems that promote imbalance and complication.
However, I think you ideas could be refined further, to make the system simpler and easier to use.
If all models get a Armour Value from 1 to 10.All weapons get a Armour Penetration value from 1 to 10.
Then the save the model gets can be looked up on a chart similar to the way S v T is currently done .
Stat values run 1 to 10 to give a decent basic range.All results are a D6 roll you need to succeed.
d results meant you auto succeed and double up the success to count as 2 wounds/ structure damage.
7 result means you half the number of 6 rolled rounding down to count as successes.(Quicker than re rolling 6+ followed by 4+ for 7+ to hit .)
n means no effect.Not able to hit /save or wound.
This would cover all units in the same way, and reduce complication without loosing granularity of results.
@All
I agree with everyone voting for removing the poorly applied Apoc game ideas from 6th and 7th ed.
Set the game size at 5th ed.(With the Apoc units in a dedicated expansion of their own.)
Decide what the game play is supposed to be .
And then write completely new rules from the ground up , keeping some core elements the current 40k players expect.
My 3 auto includes, would be .
Keep the move shoot and assault phases, but in alternating phase game turn.
Keep the three stage damage resolution,but in the more logical order of , to hit ,to save ,to wound.(Which allows a simple suppression mechanic to be used.)
Keep the D6, but use them in a more intelligent way to generate proportional results.
And most importantly develop all armies at the same time using less restrictive F.O.C . that allow more narrative themes to be used.
And balance the game at the level of interaction the unit level. Costing individual models and equipment, then trying to balance the game at the army level is totally a sales driven approach that is the least effective way to acheive game balance in a game focused on unit interaction!.
I disagree on the removal of the larger game pieces from the core system. If they are created in a way that is balanced to the game, then there is no need for any supplemental material.
Once everything has been built with the same pricing as a base and with their interaction on the table in mind they really should have no negative effect on the game as a whole.
Don't allow personal preference for game size decide what can and cannot be balanced within a system, some of us like our big stompy robots
@Lythrandire Biehrellian.
To quote you..
''Don't allow personal preference for game size decide what can and cannot be balanced within a system, some of us like our big stompy robots ''.
I am aware that SOME people like all the big kits that look good.(Mainly collectors who GW are now targeting.)
Others think they are a complete waste of time UNLESS you are playing over a large area.(Full on 'Apocalypse' size game.)
IF they are in an expansion of their own, then JUST the players who want to include them can use them.
But the way they were implemented in 6th-7th edition was as a desperate cash grab.
So to re set to a size of game that the majority of people enjoyed and were happy with, and get that balanced and elegant .
Means that when we add the 'big stuff' back in we can do it so it actually enhances the game play , rather than totally derails it.
I use the term 'we', as GW are never going to invest in actual rules development for 40k.(It will get in the way of short term sales apparently. )
So its going to be up to the players to try to sort it out..
What I was saying is, if you build it to always be within the scope of the rules, there is no problem with them in the core ruleset.
The main issue everyone has with gargantuans, superheavies, and flyers is they were just yanked from a separate system with no thought to how they would affect the normal gameplay. If they are redesigned from the ground up to fit seamlessly within the ruleset, there is no reason to ever have a separate supplement.
Adding a percentage of points stipulation fixes your size issues, rewriting the rules allows you to keep their potency in check.
With regards to the ex-apocalypse GMC/SH/Flier issue, I was thinking about this recently and came up the shell of an idea:
Have two different game sizes.
The first is Skirmish, with a recommended point size of 500-1500 points. Ex-apoc models are banned, the core FOC is smaller, and superformations like the Gladys and Decurion are banned. Standard formations are still fine.
The second is Warfront, with a recommended size of 1250+ - and yes, the overlap is deliberate, to allow people to shift from one to the other. In Warfront, ex-apoc units are fine, as are superformations.
Some formations are specifically designed for one game type or the other, and have something in the rules to indicate this.
That way, armies can more easily be balanced for multiple game sizes. Obviously, the rest of the system also needs a revamp.
Have armies constructed out of a CAD, none of this formation gak that gives advantages for no points cost what so ever, especially when some benefits are much better than others.
Only Troops score.
All Bike units are FA and can be moved to Troops if two HQs take Bike.
Immobilized Vehicles (for purposes of DT) don't score.
Can't share transports even if Bb.
These are just a few of the changes I would make. I would make the rules accessible online so that they can be easily rewritten if need be. I would also re-write the whole rulebook for 8th edition basing it on 5th with some adjustments, as well as release all the 8th edition version of Codexes at the same time, after thoroughly playtesting them within 8th's rules.
What if all units for a faction are put in their Codex, but each unit is given a Level which represents the minimum size game it is appropriate for. That way players can easily make clear what type of game they want to play, without it coming across as "house rules".
Level 1: Basic units and non-named characters.
Level 2: The rest of the non-Super Heavy/Gargantuan units.
Level 3: The Gargantuan and Super Heavy units.
Having set game sizes with the units that are appropriate for that game size, is a sensible idea.
The issue I have with super heavies is they have to be super effective, and cost an appropriately higher amount of points.
This causes imbalance in the level of investment in the game.And also takes the game size beyond a 6 x 4 table IF you want to keep sensible levels of tactical maneuver.
I was just proposing to get the basic battle game sorted first, so when we add the bigger kits, they can be brought in to a more stable and structured frame work of game play.
One of the core faults in 40k is the way the F,O,C focuses on function of units rather than rarity of units.
This means the game devs try to adjust PV to perform the function of limiting units, which is the road to forced imbalance IMO.
If the F.O.C was HQ , Common units, Support Units, Specialist Units similar to the way Epic SM built armies.(Which was about the same size armies in 6mm as 6th ed 40k used 28mm for!)_
It would leave PV to determine relative in game worth.
Basically players pick a HQ and 5 common units as the Core of the force.
They may add up to 4 Support units, and 1 Specialist unit.
This allows lots of different themes to be covered to represent the old Klans, Regiments, Craftworlds etc, without all the current complication that 7th ed 40k uses.
Lanrak wrote: I was just proposing to get the basic battle game sorted first, so when we add the bigger kits, they can be brought in to a more stable and structured frame work of game play.
Absolutely. There's no point getting into the details of the more massive units if you don't have the most basic ones properly balanced. I think it would probably be easiest to start with the cheapest, most basic units in the game, and balance them so that their optional upgrades are appropriately priced for how they impact the game. Then progress up through more powerful units, so that their prices are appropriately balanced relative to the cheapest units. So Super Heavies/Gargantuans would be the last things tackled.
The issue I have with super heavies is they have to be super effective, and cost an appropriately higher amount of points.
This may be accurate to most Super Heavies, but may I present the Baneblade and its variants as a counter-point. They are very expensive units, but their effectiveness as directly related to the game size. Their main weapon are enormous blasts, which only matter if the enemy's units are sufficiently clustered to allow multiple units to be caught in its radius. In smaller games it is simply too easy for an enemy to spread out, leaving the Baneblade not much more effective than a Land Raider, so even if a player has an option to bring it in a game <2500points, it typically isn't wise. (It's a bit like how you can't use a nuke in a fight with your next-door neighbor, even if you have one, the weapon simply requires larger scale and greater distance to be used)
If the F.O.C was HQ , Common units, Support Units, Specialist Units similar to the way Epic SM built armies.(Which was about the same size armies in 6mm as 6th ed 40k used 28mm for!)_
I do suspect that changing the classifications as you described would make it easier to build themed armies. However, I would note that with both your suggestion and the current method, players can take multiple smaller detachments to achieve the same effect.
What if the standard F.O.C. were replaced with everyone having a Decurion Detachment?
@Bill1138.
I think we are on the same page as it were, but express the same ideas in slightly different ways.So can talk past each other a bit.
The argument about the Baneblade only being effective in a particular game size, is more or less what I meant about the imbalance in the levels of investment in the game.
If you are trying to balance an infantry hoard army with lots of super heavies , even if the PV are worked out really well,And each force has a 50% chance of winning.It just is not a fun match up.
So having set minimum game sizes before certain units can be chosen is the best way to deal with this, I agree.
I would like to think that;-
Pick a HQ Unit, then select a core of 5 common units to finish the core force.
And have the option to pick up to 4 Separate Support units, and up to one Specialist unit.
Is much easier than the 7th ed method of force selection.(I did ask about this new method, , and sort of lost interest when the guy explaining it broke out a Venn diagram )
If the HQ unit sets the theme , and what units are classed as Common, Support and Specialist.We can include the more diverse units, as they would only appear in the appropriate list.
EG Squiggoths ,Wildboys,and Boarboys only appear in a 'Snakebite'.feral list.
This question is far too difficult to answer with a single band-aid.
As it stands, 40k has numerous problems with it. Since this game lacks even a consistent grammar system and basic proofreading at times, there's a hell of a lot of holes to fix before even getting to the game mechanics.
But in broad strokes, this is what I'd like to see happen:
1st: General simplification of the rules. My main gripe with this is that Flyers, Gargantuan Creatures, Superheavy Vehicles, D-Strength weapons, and even sometimes some of the normal stuff like Jetbikes VS Eldar Jetbikes have just too many subsections and "advanced rules" tacked on top of them. The game needs to simplify all of this. This will be a very hard pill for people to swallow but it is one if the game is going to have any semblance of balance in the future, as any designer will tell you that increasing complexity only creates increasingly harder issues and unforeseeable issues down the road. Gargantuan Creatures, Superheavies and D-Strength weapons in particular should be relegated back to Apocalypse, as their very nature requires special rules to break 40k own internal system just to work (D-Strength literally exists because it broke the strength stat).
Next up, cleaning up the FoC. Get rid of Formations, Unbound, weird-ass detachments and whatnot. This is not only because of the above complexity issue, but it's also horrible for designers to balance game units. When the FoC was originally implimented, it was just as much of a tool for army building as well as a design tool for designers; Troops would be your baseline units that you design everything around and where you start. Fast Units are Troops that are...well Faster, Heavy Support had more heavy weapons, Elites are Troops but better. An occasional deviation from this is ok, but to have almost every single army break a rule you had as the baseline and you might as well never have a baseline to start. Formations, theoretically, can do the same, but from a designer's viewpoint is far too unwieldy to gauge things and the old FoC is far easier to work with.
Then: Clean up the Codexes. We have 5 flavours of power armor alone and they have three supplements and two campaign-exclusive detachments and relics lists. I know Space Marines are GW's cash cow but this is responsible for 80% of the wacky rules we have; each individual marine detachment feels the need to be "unique" so we gotta make each one unique somehow. And we can't even decide which way to make them unique. Which one is the close combat specialists? White Scars, Blood Angels, Space Wolves or Ravenguard? Who is suppose to be shooty? Imperial Fists, Ultramarines, Dark Angels or Space Wolves? Who is suppose to be all-rounder? Ultramarines, or Space Wolves? This sort of explosion of "variety" instead caused all of the space marine armies to be "watered down versions of a Non-Space Marine army in power armor" (Dark Angels = Tau, Iron Hands = Necrons, etc...). And the supplements did no favours for the other armies either; Haemonculous Coven should be playable without a separate book and Chaos really needs to be reunited as one army again. And let's not even get started on Grey Knights, Sisters of Battle, that paltry excuse for a Deathwatch "army", Inquisition and the Stormtroopers.
And then: Get rid of all the random tables. They make no sense at times and are harmful at worst. Your Warlord should know exactly what skills he has to bring to the table, he doesn't bring a column of armored tanks and then suddenly realize he specializes in infantry tactics. Same goes for Psychic Powers. Psychic Powers in general needs to be simplified and not every army needs it's own special version of it, and certainly not every marine chapter under the sun. As it stands, Chaos, Eldar, Nids and Orks should get their own dedicated lists, since they each are either the embodiment of their own psychic presence or have research it longer than every other race. Everyone else should just suck it up and use the core codex ones. The Psychic phase is an iffy one, but I actually like it and it should really be implimented to something similar to the Fantasy Magic Phase instead, making casting more reliable.
And more: Get competent designers and playtest. The game right now has zero playtesting going through it (most of the grammar mistakes can be caught just by reading the rules!) and it could use competent designers. They need to get rid of the mentality of updating things just to sell stuff. And be responsible for the rules they write. The whole idea of "Forge the Narrative" is a cope out; it's a crappy excuse for their neglect for the rules. You can totally make rules that support the narrative if you take the time to playtest and innovate, as this forum showed it's not that hard either. We have a huge pool of people who would probably do it for pennies if given the chance, and the longterm gain for GW would far outweigh the short term costs.
Finally: Move the narrative forward. There's no need to retcon stuff back into fluff when you can just move things forward. In fact prior to the codex overhaul this is exactly what 4th edition did; the special issue wargear were out-and-out to be testbed systems with the implication that the would-be 5th edition the Tau codex would include "fixed" versions of them for the common trooper to use (this however never happened). This way they can still introduce new models and stuff to the game without having to shoehorn their backstory into the fluff, and don't have to crap over the rules of existing units to sell them. For example, the increasingly scarce Chaos Space Marines from the original heresy in the various codexes can be chalked up to casualties slowly taking their toll on the traitor legion's forces, with none of the new blood being able to fulfill the role. Instead GW is unable to decide whether the current CSM dex should represent the original Traitor Legions or newly-turned Marine Chapters.
And those are just the broad strokes suggestions I'd have. Each Codex, each unit, each weapon has it's own faults and should be managed accordingly, and if I were to actually list them, it would be a 40 page document MINIMUM. At this rate, it'd be easier to build the game from the ground up rather than try to patch this sinking ship.
A baseline FOC that encompasses everything anyone would need with restrictions on the bonkers stuff (LoW). Rites of war to add lots of flavor and adjust the FoC to fit various play styles with both bonuses and drawbacks for each one.
@MechaEmperor7000.
Agree with nearly everything you posted.
Except
A)Even when GW had competent game developers, the GW Sales Department totally ignored them !
B)The '1000 years in an entire universe' game setting ,is full of potential to explore and expand upon.
The fact GW totally miss-managed the way they approached it, does not mean they had to advance the story line.
If they only showed limited examples of a fraction of what was out there, and let players fill in the massive blanks, it would have been fine.
But some asshat wanted to define the entire IP , in some misguided idea of 'control everything and we will make more money'.And just restricted/mangled the established narrative, and drove more people away.
I agree a complete re write is the most effective way to fix 40k.
@Lance845.
If you did not experience 3rd ed 40k.
You may not realize even the most balanced and simplified version of the GW40k battle game rules had serious flaws.
They called it 'Blandhammer' for a reason.And we all thought when they release all the codex books they will put the 'character' back into the game...
But the cost of adding character to the new rules was adding more and more special rules, additional rules bloat and complication.
Until we have the natural progression of starting with a flawed rule set , trying to fix it without making any needed changes, 7th ed 40k.
As 30k uses very limited number of unit types compared to 40k, it is so much easier to balance.
I believe the more units you add the more special rules bloat will occur, and the game will end up close to the 7th ed 40k mess we have now.
Maybe not a complete pile of steaming dung with glitter on the top.But quite a lot of hints of the dung theme over all.
Scatter lasers probably could use a bump but the real problem is their is no limit to how many you can take per unit. Even a guard squad would get a huge bump if I could take unlimited GL for example.
Remove the point cost of the game? This way we can balance the game in relation to the type of board we are playing, the method of deployment and the objective(s) of the mission.
One thing I think is an absolute necessity (in addition to the complete redesign of the game itself) is to make the rules more accessible.
Codexes should be available as paper-backs (just the rules, not all of the extra fluff and pictures that just make the books thicker), and these should be sold for what it costs to make and distribute them. I'd personally simply make all of the lore currently in the Codexes available online.
And for the people who want everything in their Codex (prices be ), they can buy a special edition Codex, which is hard back and has all of the extra fluff that the rest of us don't care to lug around.
Then do the same with the Core Rules. And the new Core rules and Codexes should all be released at the same time.
This would remove a lot of the overhead cost of getting into the game which is keeping a lot of people out. And if they back off the prices of the miniatures then their potential market gets a lot larger, as more of the younger crowd will be able to afford to play.
@ Bill1138.
If you are focusing on game play and game balance,and selling minatures for use in a tactical battle game.
(Rather than selling the customers '..jewel like objects of wonder..'(tm) )
Then why not have the core rules and army lists as free to download PDFs?(That can be updated every year, based on feed back from the players on the forums.)
People wanting cool stories still have Black Library books.
People wanting big books full of pictures and inspiration for collecting/converting can buy the 'Source books' for each faction. Eg like the current codex books without rules, but more focus on conversions and painting guides..
And If we are looking at game function and balance , perhaps starting with a force we have the most in common with.EG the bog standard human force.Would better show how all the factions differ from us.
Rather than start with GWs posters boys , the 7 foot tall super men with the best gear in the galaxy, and how every other faction is 'inferior' to them
in some way.
Lanrak wrote: @ Bill1138.
If you are focusing on game play and game balance,and selling minatures for use in a tactical battle game.
(Rather than selling the customers '..jewel like objects of wonder..'(tm)
Then why not have the core rules and army lists as free to download PDFs?(That can be updated every year, based on feed back from the players on the forums.)
I'd absolutely be fine with the rules all being free downloads online. It certainly would make updating the rules easier. However, I do think at least the Core Rules should be available as hard copies simply because it will be much more durable than binders (and not all of us have I-pads). And if the rules were actually done right, it should be several years before any sort of update to the Core Rules is needed, and the length of time between editions could be doubled through the use of a printable FAQ to cover the changes that become necessary.
And If we are looking at game function and balance , perhaps starting with a force we have the most in common with.EG the bog standard human force.Would better show how all the factions differ from us.
EG? Did you mean Imperial Guard? If so, that's something I've been looking into. I think if we were to start with one Codex to balance internally, before moving on to the others, this one is probably the best, as it is the closest to having objective real-world comparisons out of all of 40k's factions.
@Bill1138.
The option to buy the rules in paperback format if you want to would be fine by me.
But a rule set written for the game play of 40K should not run to more than 50 pages. IMO.
(The faction lists should not be more than a dozen pages each if they are focused on in game data.)
Yes I meant IG as the starting focus of the game.As they are the closest real world analogue we have in 40k.
If the game lets these easily identifiable units behave how we expect, then it will arrive at more intuitive game play.
And for this reason I think 40k should have an equal focus on mobility fire power and assault, to allow all units to have more relevance.
As the 'weird aliens' can behave slightly differently to the normal human forces, without breaking the game to make them super special in their own unique way with loads of special rules.
This is why I think we need a complete re-write to cover more game play with the core rules.
(So mobility, shooting and assault each have 2 elements on the stat line rather than the current 0,1,4 loading .)
If we are talking about re-writing rule books and Codex for balance, I don't believe from a logistics stand point that just re-writing everything and releasing it at the same times is even MILDLY a realistic concept. I mean you are talking about a massive financial investment that could cripple if not bankrupt a company like GW, lets be realistic... however I am actually ok with the approach they are currently taking with formations. I do not believe that formations are in anyway the problem with the game currently. Now, does everyone have them yet, NO! that is a major issue, as a chaos player, it kills me to not have any real formations outside of DK and CD's.
Now I would like to see rules released on GW's site for free might be a good way to draw people into the game, it helps reduce that barrier of entry. and you can make an argument that that makes them more money in the long run.
I honestly believe that formations is the way to keep the game alive, so long as GW is careful to not to go insane with them and get to greedy on forcing new content at to fast a rate that no one can afford to keep up with it. Now, that being said, you can make the argument that they have not done the best job of balancing those formations, some are much better then others. these splash releases i think area good way to go, it allows them to rebalance a bit with formations and fun scenarios mid codex release. More careful thought into those formations i think is the key, making each army dinamic in some way is the key to "balancing" the game out.
But ill be honest, the game needed and SHOULD have advanced beyond the old standard CaD where units shuffle forward and shoot at each other or charge each other. Looka round beyond the game its self, look at other games on the market, they are NOT games that you shuffle forward blandly shoot and make saves and ho hum threw games. Im sorry this is not 2nd or 3rd edition anymore, its just NOT and i really think people need to get past that! If that is your thing, cool, that's good for you, there are plenty of historical civil war wargames out there that you will love! and there is nothing wrong with that, but 40K is NOT that game anymore, and if it wants to survive it HAS to evolve! Those that don't die off.
The real work I see needed to be done is more on simplifying some rules, not all but some. The core fo the game isn't bad, infact i think its as good as its been in a few years now.
I believe the real balancing comes on giving some thought to how models work. A lot of the models that are "bad" in today's games are ones that have had no rules updates in years, their rules have just been copied and pasted from edition after edition. "Terminators im looking at you!" A lot of people complain about Eldar, and hey im not a Eldar defender! they are undercosted for as elite as their army rules are! For sure, but its not their formations that break them! its their point costs! They move well, they shoot well and they are FAR cheaper then they should be points wise! Points balance is the biggest problem the game faces right now. You can make that argument for a ton of models! Termies, if they where much lower points how often do you think you would see them? Dreadknots, if they where closer to 60 pts how often do you think you would see them on the table? Now give them a formation that plays to their strengths and let them dynamic in the roll they play? and sure you will have a very balanced game. will there be mismatches? of course! but that's they way it should be! Some things are just better against others, there is NOTHING wrong with that. i mean there are guys at my local shop that say the same things, no one wants to play with them because they are hateful old curmudgeons that are not fun to play against, not because their army is "abusive" or "to strong" but because they are miserable to be around.
Now the last thing i would say is doing a better job of prioritizing rules updates. i mean there is no reason we should see two or even three releases for some armies, to update their rules and keep them current when others havent seen any love in years! I mean I am a Chaos player at heart, I love my CSM's but on the table i have to hook and crook wins if i want them. There is no reason that they haven't gotten a splash book with formations in it.
I do not think "taking out formations and getting rid of rules" that quite frankly has kept this game fresh, fun and dynamic is in any way an answer, going back kills the game, more dynamic rules for the armies that don't currently have them i really think is the answer! and that seems to be the way we are going.
From your post it seems that you're arguing to not throw the baby out with the bathwater (if I'm reading it correctly). But I don't think that's what we're doing. The current rule sets are horrendously broken, to the point that simply patching it up isn't going work. The game has degraded to the point where we need to step back, figure out what aspects can be kept, and what needs to go, and then re-build the entire game from the ground up, re-balancing everything along the way. That is not the same thing as simply reverting back to a previous edition.
Many players (and former players) loathe GW's method of turning the whole game on its head every time they release something. For us, it isn't keeping the game fresh, it's just making it too expensive to play by making the models we have useless.
Example: I have around 10,000 points of Grey Knights, and most of my models cant be fielded with any plausible chance to win. Grey Knights went from a well-rounded Codex with good internal balancing to a crappy mono-build which still doesn't work particularly well without allies. You said that bad units were the result of the units not being updated for new editions, but GW ruined the Grey Knights by doing the opposite (not leaving something that worked well alone).
And most players who've been with the game for any length of time will have similar stories about when the same has been done to their Codex, or worse, when their Codex becomes completely obsolete because some other Codex got an update which is completely OP, making their's irrelevant when it can't hold up in competitive play..
This is not refreshing the game. It's sucking the soul out of the players, and its driving many of them away.
The rules and all Codexes need to be developed together, with balancing at the forefront of the priorities. Not every unit needs to be able to match every other unit. Not every list will be perfect for every enemy. However, a well thought out "take all comers" list should have roughly equal odds of beating the same from any other Codex, and that is not what we currently have.
The game is broken, both internal balance within Codexes, and external between Codexes. What we've been bouncing around are ideas about how to fix this balance. Much of fixing these issues involves cutting things which are OP, or add too many variables for any sort of balance to be possible. However when the game was rebuilt, these would be re evaluated to see if they have any place in the new rules.
The rules need to be made available either much cheaper or free. This removes a large portion of the price barrier to getting into the game. It also makes it much easier to start multiple armies, so GWs income could actually increase (assuming their reputation hasn't already driven too many people away).
The entirety of the rules for the game should be
1: The Core Rules (which includes everything about Fortifications alternate game modes, etc).
2: The Codexes, which include every unit for that faction (including any units which are restricted to Apocalypse or some other gameplay format.
3: FAQs which can be printed out and kept with their appropriate books.
The online FAQ should be always be up-to-date, and new editions of the rules would NOT be a place to try out new rules, and would only include the changes which had already been implemented in the FAQs.
@Dyslexican32.
Re writing the rules and re doing all the codex books at the same time is what the game of 40k has needed for while now.
If the rules are written for the game play and cover about 90% of the game play, the majority of units can be covered by the core rules and balanced quite quickly.(EG most other war games are 'sorted' by 3rd ed of the game.The 40k battle games 3rd ed,(6th ed).Was so underwhelming GW had to release 7th ed 40k after just 2 years to try to prop up falling sales volumes!
Is writing rules to inspire collectors to buy more models, rather than writing rules to deliver a good game working out well for GW ?
They have lost appx 2/3rd of their sales volumes since 2004,And they are still loosing sales volumes in a growing market...
It could be argued GW can not afford not to sort out the rules properly with a complete re-write.
My objection to detachments and formations etc.Is if the F.O.C was doing its job properly they would not be needed. Every other game I know of manages to cover force organisation/army composition in a simple and elegant way that works.(Usually working on unit rarity not unit function.)
A lot of the issues with the 40k battle game are unique to 40k, because its the only game I can think of that has never has rules written specifically for its game play.
The actual core rules of 40k only cover standard infantry in the open.The other dozen or so unit types need separate,or special rules.
So the core rules of 40k cover less than HALF of the game play of 40k.And that is is why if has to use over eighty special rules , and multiple resolution systems for the same in game function.
An objective comparison of 40ks core rules to other rule sets shows them to be inadequate, or down right unsuitable for the intended game play.
(Depending on what game play you think 40k should have. )
40ks restrictive rules deliver very simple game play.
But GW corporate thinks its customers are happier with adding complicated rules to make up for lack of game complexity.
The only way to address these core issues is with a complete ground up re-write.
From your post it seems that you're arguing to not throw the baby out with the bathwater (if I'm reading it correctly). But I don't think that's what we're doing. The current rule sets are horrendously broken, to the point that simply patching it up isn't going work. The game has degraded to the point where we need to step back, figure out what aspects can be kept, and what needs to go, and then re-build the entire game from the ground up, re-balancing everything along the way. That is not the same thing as simply reverting back to a previous edition.
I wholeheartedly disagree that the game needs to be re written from the ground up. Are there rules that I would say need addressed? Yeah of course there are! Stomp is one that comes to mind off the top of my head. The way that works currently makes it very abusive. However I do not believe its the core rules that are the problem, You can make the argument that codexes are not well balanced across several editions, given that some have not gotten releases in SEVERAL editions however I totally disagree that the answer is to cut out things like formations and go back to FoC only.
The problem is not the formations in the game, formations have made the game much more dynamic and fun IMO. Like i said I do not believe that the formations "break the game" they don't, some are stronger then others, sure i will grant you that. But if you look at the formation and how they function themselves its not the formation its self that makes them broken, its the improper balance of the units involved that makes the eldar formations so much more powerful then others to use an example. The units themselves are extremely point efficient for what they do,s o its the volume of the strong units you can bring that makes the so strong. A proper balancing of units in codexes seems to be the fix IMO. Those formations just accentuate their strengths.
Example: I have around 10,000 points of Grey Knights, and most of my models cant be fielded with any plausible chance to win. Grey Knights went from a well-rounded Codex with good internal balancing to a crappy mono-build which still doesn't work particularly well without allies. You said that bad units were the result of the units not being updated for new editions, but GW ruined the Grey Knights by doing the opposite (not leaving something that worked well alone).
Look I agree with the bad idea of taking Grayknights and GW intentionally making them worse, I have no idea why they did that either. Especially when the game took a shift to much more powerful armies. I don't know what to tell you on that, However i know in my game group I have let a friend use his old codex(we make a few logical tweeks to make it work) and they do just fine against most armies. They do struggle against high mobility armies, which is the meta right now ill give you that. But again if you build a formation that allows them to shine they will be just fine. And yeah I mean I don't know what to tell you cus without intentionally taking some cheese my CSM's are in the same boat where they just struggle to compete on a competitive level. Infact my CSM army gets wrecked by Gray knights ona regular basis. So i DO understand your frustration but don't agree with the solution of "cutting" thing out of the game fixing that problem.
The game is broken, both internal balance within Codexes, and external between Codexes. What we've been bouncing around are ideas about how to fix this balance. Much of fixing these issues involves cutting things which are OP, or add too many variables for any sort of balance to be possible. However when the game was rebuilt, these would be re evaluated to see if they have any place in the new rules.
What specifically about the game is broken? Give me an example? Where and why is it "OP" I see so many people throw that term around but i find so often that it makes me roll my eyes. people at my shop cry about eldar (which are very strong i don't disagree!) and Dark Angles bikes. And where yes some of my armies struggle against them, I have others that destroy them. again if the codex's where updated properly then this would not be an issue at all. We all use the same core rules, but don't use the same codex. That was my whole point, rewriting the game from the ground up is not the answer. I actually think 7th is a fairly good system over all.
My objection to detachments and formations etc.Is if the F.O.C was doing its job properly they would not be needed.
I remember a ton of complaining about the same things when this was the case. This goes back to what i said before, "it was better before" is not an answer. its sticking your head in the sand.
An objective comparison of 40ks core rules to other rule sets shows them to be inadequate, or down right unsuitable for the intended game play.
(Depending on what game play you think 40k should have. )
How so? please give specifics? Because i don't think there are any problems that a few patches or more clearly written versions of the core rules wont fix, and even then there really aren't that many, the problem the FAQ's are next to nonexistent to fix the few relevant issues. But over all iw ouldnt say they are "inadequate:"
The only way to address these core issues is with a complete ground up re-write.
Again a disagree. The biggest problem is codex balance not core game balance. Most of the armies that have fallen behind are ones who are waiting for updated rules and formations, this leaves those that don't have updates behind. JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER EDITION! people make the same complains because their codex hasn't gotten an update. "the game is broken it needs fixed!" but when its their codex is on top its crickets.I think the only issue we really have right now is there seems to be no strategy for rounding things out, again done this in between codex or splash releases. If there was a concentrated effort to make sure that each codex got a little love, then the game balances out. But crying about how this or that is " OP" or "broken" so we should go back to FoC and no allies doesn't even fix anything, if anything it puts armies that are already strong like Eldar that much further ahead. Try playing a game where you and an eldar opponent run Foc, see where that gets you. cus I have its not pretty. but "rewriting the whole game" isn't even a semi realistic answer. A plan moving forward, yes but they seem to have that cis currently moving those armies that have gotten updates into a spot where they can compete against each other.
Dyslexican32 wrote: I wholeheartedly disagree that the game needs to be re written from the ground up. Are there rules that I would say need addressed? Yeah of course there are! Stomp is one that comes to mind off the top of my head. The way that works currently makes it very abusive. However I do not believe its the core rules that are the problem, You can make the argument that codexes are not well balanced across several editions, given that some have not gotten releases in SEVERAL editions however I totally disagree that the answer is to cut out things like formations and go back to FoC only.
A proper balancing of units in codexes seems to be the fix IMO. Those formations just accentuate their strengths.
I don't personally have a preference regarding Formations beyond the need for consistency. Either give everyone fair and similarly combat-effective Formations, or cut them out entirely. I don't care which. But proper balancing of the Codexes does require a full re-write of their rules, and that by necessity will include some of the rules from the Core Rulebook.
the bad idea of taking Grayknights and GW intentionally making them worse, I have no idea why they did that either. Especially when the game took a shift to much more powerful armies. I don't know what to tell you on that, However i know in my game group I have let a friend use his old codex(we make a few logical tweeks to make it work) and they do just fine against most armies.
Out of curiosity, what "tweaks" did you put on the 5th Edition Codex?
Look I agree with They do struggle against high mobility armies, which is the meta right now ill give you that. But again if you build a formation that allows them to shine they will be just fine.
It's better to fix the base units before trying to introduce Formations which showcase the units abilities. Most of the units in the Grey Knight 7th Edition Codex are utter crap, and so over-costed that it really can't be fixed with a Formation.
What specifically about the game is broken? Give me an example? Where and why is it "OP" I see so many people throw that term around but i find so often that it makes me roll my eyes.
You are correct that the term "OP" is thrown around far too much. However I rarely use it for that reason. When I refer to "cutting things which are OP" I was referring to when a single unit can be practically un-harmable by another codex unless they actually built an army around fighting that specific unit. Imperial Knights and Wraithknights are two such examples. And some of these re-rollable Invulnerable Saves are just as bad, especially when the unit has Storm Shields.
people at my shop cry about eldar (which are very strong i don't disagree!) and Dark Angles bikes. And where yes some of my armies struggle against them, I have others that destroy them.
That's not balance. That's at best a strict Paper-Scissors-Rock mentality. It's fine for different armies to have different things they excel at, provided if each Codex plays to its own strengths, either army has a roughly equal chance of winning. No one wants the odds to be 2/1 or 3/1 against them going into a game just because of the army choices.
My objection to detachments and formations etc.Is if the F.O.C was doing its job properly they would not be needed.
I remember a ton of complaining about the same things when this was the case. This goes back to what i said before, "it was better before" is not an answer. its sticking your head in the sand.
I don't think that's fair. His argument was that if the balance and variety needed were already built into the Codexes, then the extra special rules from Formations and Detachments wouldn't be needed. If every unit in the Codex were already equally viable, then all of the variety players could want is already right there. As I said, I don't personally care if Formations stay or go, so long as the end result is balanced gameplay, but I do think that he has a point that either way the Codexes need to be re-balanced, and if everything the units need to be viable is in the Codex, dropping Formations will just make the balancing simpler.
You're free to have your opinions just like everyone else, but for me the game's become unplayable, because too many rules are too vaguely worded, and everyone wants to interpret them differently. And GW knows this is a problem because their Core Rulebook even has a rule in the front that says if you can't agree on the interpretation of a rule then both players should have a "roll-off." That's , and some of their writers need canned! As long as the game has been around and having seen how people will rules-lawyer vague wordings, there is no excuse for how many of these vague wordings are still in the game.
At the very least the Core Rules need gone over with a fine-toothed comb, removing every instance of vague wording, and the Universal Special Rules need to be subject to the ground-up re-write of every Codex to balance them.
@Dyslexican32.
When I pointed out the original concept of the 40k F.O.C was flawed.
(GW focused on unit function to help new customers collect armies.And it was part of an abandoned promotion method. EG collect HQ and 2 troop units, and get 10% off a FA or HS units choice.)
I was NOT suggesting to return to this flawed system.But to create a new system similar to the ones other games use, that allow varied and interesting army /force builds without of all the shenanigans of Detachments and Formations 40k rules need.
However, unless the game rules represent and supports all unit functions equally,the game play and game balance will be compromised.
Considering GW called Epic Armageddon an '..advanced tactical battle game for experienced players...'
And as it covered the same units and armies as 7th ed 40k.(But in 6mm so the armies had room to maneuver on a 6x4 table. )
You would think that the rules for this 'advanced game' would take up many more pages than 7th ed 40k.
The last time I looked all the rules and all the army lists for Epic Armageddon took up less than 350 pages.
What part of the statement '.The actual core rules of 40k only cover standard infantry in the open.'Was unclear?
As there are over a dozen types of unit in 40k , how can the core rules only covering one of them be a good thing for clarity and game balance?
If you assume that game play of 40k should be an equal balance of mobility, fire power and assault.(So all units can shine in the game.)
Then you would expect the stat line to show this..
But 40ks stat line has 0 stats for mobility,1 stat for shooting, and 4 stats dedicated to assault.
Oddly enough WHFB stat line works great for WHFB.(Where the game play focus is firmly on close combat and shooting is used in a supporting role.) But is not that great for 40k.
Unless you have witnessed how the 'unsuitable/unstable ' core rules of 3rd ed , lead to the horrendous rules bloat and game play issues , it may be difficult to accept the core rules are seriously flawed, and need to be reworked /replaced to correct the errors at source .
@Martel732.
I agree in ditching the use of D6 in artificially restrictive ways .(Binary condition dictators, purely deterministic methods.)
Lots of games use D6 in much more intelligent ways, and I would prefer to try these methods before ditching their use completely.
Frozocrone wrote: Have armies constructed out of a CAD, none of this formation gak that gives advantages for no points cost what so ever, especially when some benefits are much better than others.
Only Troops score.
All Bike units are FA and can be moved to Troops if two HQs take Bike.
Immobilized Vehicles (for purposes of DT) don't score.
Can't share transports even if Bb.
Pretty much exactly what needs to change. I'd also throw in some changes to SHVs/GCs.
Also, I disagree with the formations. Don't remove them. I like them.
Frozocrone wrote: Have armies constructed out of a CAD, none of this formation gak that gives advantages for no points cost what so ever, especially when some benefits are much better than others.
Only Troops score.
All Bike units are FA and can be moved to Troops if two HQs take Bike.
Immobilized Vehicles (for purposes of DT) don't score.
Can't share transports even if Bb.
Pretty much exactly what needs to change. I'd also throw in some changes to SHVs/GCs.
Also, I disagree with the formations. Don't remove them. I like them.
Personally i would rather no Bike jump FOC. it makes building too easy. personally would say they can get scoring but you still need troop tax.
i dont understand the immobilized vehicle thing though. it still has crew and probably a beacon for a thunder hawk to come by and scoop em up. realistically speaking
100% no BB sharing. no BB in general it allows way to much shenanigans.
Frozocrone wrote: Have armies constructed out of a CAD, none of this formation gak that gives advantages for no points cost what so ever, especially when some benefits are much better than others.
Only Troops score.
All Bike units are FA and can be moved to Troops if two HQs take Bike.
Immobilized Vehicles (for purposes of DT) don't score.
Can't share transports even if Bb.
Pretty much exactly what needs to change. I'd also throw in some changes to SHVs/GCs.
Also, I disagree with the formations. Don't remove them. I like them.
Personally i would rather no Bike jump FOC. it makes building too easy. personally would say they can get scoring but you still need troop tax.
i dont understand the immobilized vehicle thing though. it still has crew and probably a beacon for a thunder hawk to come by and scoop em up. realistically speaking
100% no BB sharing. no BB in general it allows way to much shenanigans.
Not being super into Imperium fluff, but having played the Deathwatch RPG, and having looked at the Drop Pod model, there shouldn't be anyone left in that. It should just be sitting there, and will be retrieved at some point after the battle. So no, they shouldn't be scoring.
Frozocrone wrote: Have armies constructed out of a CAD, none of this formation gak that gives advantages for no points cost what so ever, especially when some benefits are much better than others.
Only Troops score.
All Bike units are FA and can be moved to Troops if two HQs take Bike.
Immobilized Vehicles (for purposes of DT) don't score.
Can't share transports even if Bb.
Pretty much exactly what needs to change. I'd also throw in some changes to SHVs/GCs.
Also, I disagree with the formations. Don't remove them. I like them.
Personally i would rather no Bike jump FOC. it makes building too easy. personally would say they can get scoring but you still need troop tax.
i dont understand the immobilized vehicle thing though. it still has crew and probably a beacon for a thunder hawk to come by and scoop em up. realistically speaking
100% no BB sharing. no BB in general it allows way to much shenanigans.
Not being super into Imperium fluff, but having played the Deathwatch RPG, and having looked at the Drop Pod model, there shouldn't be anyone left in that. It should just be sitting there, and will be retrieved at some point after the battle. So no, they shouldn't be scoring.
Then why not just make all DT non scoring overall. unless otherwise transporting a troop choice.
a drop pod still has a beacon and an Automated gun (which i dont think should be BS4) so a T hawk in general would be coming by to take it back. (drop pods aint cheap )
I think the only real balance that could be achieved is if GW got another company (like WizKids or Fantasy Flight) to write all of their rulebooks and codices for them. GW could still publish them and put their name on the books, but someone else would actually write the contents.
Then why not just make all DT non scoring overall. unless otherwise transporting a troop choice.
a drop pod still has a beacon and an Automated gun (which i dont think should be BS4) so a T hawk in general would be coming by to take it back. (drop pods aint cheap )
I'd be fine with that ruling. I liked 6th edition where Troops were the only things that could score.
40k is not a balanced game, it is a narrative driven game
Sure in the tourney scene it is, but there are many many garage games played out with a narrative theme and the system works better for these games.
The system works better when people don't really care about the outcome and just want to see the story unfold.
The best moments in 40k are not when you tally the score at the end to see who wins/loses. Its the special moments that happen during the game that defy all odds.
Its the guardsman that tanks a unit of terminators.
Its when you roll a 12 for that charge that needed it.
Its when you roll a yahtzee of 6s for your saves.
The randomness of the game is its charm.
Near the end of any game I'm losing, for fun I invent a 'moral victory objective' - something I can still accomplish even though I have a for sure loss heading my way.
To compare, the ultimate balanced game would be chess. And even then whoever goes first has the advantage. Both sides have the exact same units and rules. There is no narrative in this game, it is a pure skill contest.
#1 way to attempt to balance 40k is don't be a dick - see what your opponent brings and if you know you are going to curb stomp him then trim your list to something equivalent.
When you go into a game, focus on the fact that a cool story is about to unfold. If all you focus on is the math hammer of winning then you are robbing yourself of the joy of seeing the story unfold in the random way it is about to.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For example of the moral victory objective - last game I lost my termy libby was in a fight with a trygon prime. I'm like - if this guy can get force off and kill the prime I win the moral victory.
And he did, against all odds, and it was awesome even though I lost.
@chaosmarauder.
Having enough balance in the rules to allow fun random pick up games does NOT prevent people making up their own narrative for their games..
In fact having well defined intuitive rules helps EVERYONE enjoy playing the game.
If you are saying that the rules for 40k do not support random pick up games, or any sort of tactical planning.And they are basically one step up from making the rules and story as you go along. And for those people who just want to put nice looking models on a table and push them round for a couple of hours and roll dice to see what happens.They are good enough at the very basic level of being better than nothing?
Then I totally agree.
But if you have played a war game with elegant intuitive rules , where careful use of tactics delivers a well considered and well deserved advantage.
The 'randum ' nature of 40k rules writing leaves any one wanting to play with any sort of applied skill with limited scope for enjoyment.
I understand everyone has different expectations from a rule set.
But all players have the power to make up random cool stuff they want to use with their friends, and making up up cool scenarios/missions/units /events is loads of fun!
Most rule sets that are sold to gamers tend to aim higher than this level of achievement, that most players are quite capable of doing themselves..
My point is sorting out the core issues with clarity and functionality in the 40k rules would just let more people enjoy playing 40k in more ways.
I am aware that GW makes a game that some people enjoy playing after lots of negotiating to arrive at a game both players want.
But I would like the rules to my favorite game setting to be if equal quality to those developed by other companies.
I am not saying you can not or should not find ways to enjoy playing games of 40k.
Its just GW should actually put more effort in to developing the rules , so players can have an enjoyable game from the 'Rules As Written.'
Rather than expect the players to sort out all the issues themselves.!
Most tactics in 40k are more akin to - I'm going to 'try' to do this, or I'm going to send these guys over here 'in the hopes' that they can accomplish x or hold x.
Because of all the sheer random factors, you usually don't know if the tactic you set in motion is going to succeed or not.
Unless.....you used a killer combination that you purposefully implemented that you know is going to get the job done.
What I am saying is that the more unknown the outcome the more actually fun it is.
The problem with absolute balance/reducing random outcomes is that it will immediately swing the playing field towards the more skilled players.
Who seriously wants to have a pickup chess game against a chess master?
Thats why, no matter what rules are invented, the onus has to be on the players to ulimately make lists that they think will create a balanced game - regardless of what is actually allowed by the rules to take.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ok so what I can see is this:
There are 2 opposite ends to this equation
Either you want a game where the most skilled player will win regardless of army or list
or
You want a game with millions of cool rules in it with no balance that can be used to forge a very random narrative outcome
Trying out random acts in the hope the random out come is successful is not tactics , it luck.
And using the poor game balance to find a powerful combination to give you an unfair advantage is not tactics either, its using lopsided strategic loading to your advantage.
If you have no interest in influencing the out come of the game then more randum stuff happening may increase your enjoyment.
But can you understand not everyone finds this fun?
Think of all the games where skill is a factor.And people enjoy playing the games and seeing improvement in their skill levels.
Why should that not apply to playing 40k?
At what point do chess masters play brand new players?Most players tend to find players of similar skill levels, and improve as a group over time.
The rules and army composition lists can be balanced enough to allow players to enjoy random pick up games. Eg players with equal skill levels have equal chance of winning.
And the beauty of this level of balance is better players can off set their skill advantage with simple handicaps. Eg the more skilled player can take less points of stuff.
You said..
Either you want a game where the most skilled player will win regardless of army or list
or
You want a game with millions of cool rules in it with no balance that can be used to forge a very random narrative outcome.
Now lets look at the level of effort required to arrive at these two 'opposites'.
The first one with focus on game play and player skills will take a team of game developers and play testers,between 3 and 8 years to arrive at.(With lots of feed back from the gaming community.)
The second one takes how long?
How long would it take you to re-write YOUR codex , just writing cool rules and stat lines YOU think are about right.The ONLY qualifying control is do YOU think its cool.
Maybe one week?
So one person re-writing all the rules and codex books focusing on 'the rule of cool'. Might take 3 months maybe?
So writing rules for enjoyable balanced pick up games, takes a lot more time and effort.And is well beyond the capabilities of any one gamer working on their own.(No disrespect to fellow gamers meant!Its very very difficult to develop a game properly, even with a development team !)
That is why gamers tend to be happy to buy rule sets that deliver this very hard to achieve product , a well defined rule set that delivers balanced game play!
Re -writing the rules and codex books just so you think they are 'cooler'. Is well within the capabilities of most gamers!If game play and game balance is not of any concern.
So I am having difficulty in understanding why you want to buy 'cool rules' from GW .When you could create 'cool rules' yourself or with your gaming group.
My gaming group have always added on house rules to all the rules we play.We just make the rules suit our group better.
We can add any level of narrative/random stuff to any level we want.To any well written and balanced rule set.
But we can NOT add any level of balance we want to , to a narrative /randum rule set.
No there isn't. Balance and fluffiness are not mutually exclusive concepts. A simple gander at any other wargame in existence disproves this notion.
Either you want a game where the most skilled player will win regardless of army or list
or
You want a game with millions of cool rules in it with no balance that can be used to forge a very random narrative outcome
but I don't think you can have both
As above, no, not even close.
It certainly requires more work to balance out all that 40k has become, but by no means impossible.
Further, random does not in any way equate with narrative anything. Random is simply random. I'd argue that giving the player control is in fact significantly more narrative oriented.
Narrative oriented games are scenario driven. That's it. Everything else about the game should be designed to be balanced and intuitive for all styles of gameplay. Balance helps narrative gameplay.
I use Kings of War as my example. There is randomness involved (Nerve Tests, Attack, Spells) but most of it is set, Movement rates and Charges. The game revolves mostly around good tactics with the random determining how well those tactics work . Hitting someone in the rear is not a guarantee of Routing them, but its still a really good idea, and this is what 40k is missing. A fair amount of tactical depth seems to have been lost, and im not really sure when that happened.
40k is extremely random. Perhaps the most random game in existence.
Name any other game where more dice are rolled throughout a single game than 40k.
As a rough hand estimate, probably about 100 dice rolled per turn per player over 5-7 turns is roughly 1000 rolled dice (give or take many factors).
And it is entirely possibly for 1 player to roll all 1s or the other to roll all 6s.
But as a quick guess, in my games at least, I'd say about half of all rolls are statistical (what you'd expect).
You guys are asking for them to balance the game. A game that, once you include all the rules from all the codexes not to mention the randomness of the dice rolled themselves, is impossible.
What are they going to do - play the codexes in a million games before releasing them? Write a master program to run on a super computer to generate all the possibilities for balance?
The simple way is what they have done - write the rules the way they want them (rule of cool) and let the players decide that if something is not balanced then house rule it or throw it out.
I believe, that if a bunch of 'balancers' were given the rules of 40k to rewrite then they would dilute a lot of the fun out of the game.
Edit - by the way I'm mostly trying to play devil's advocate here not trying to come off as a dick - its obvious there are a couple things that could be more balanced (wraithknight cost, free rhinos, free gear, scatbikes, etc etc) but one way of balancing could be just to increase the power level of all the weaker dexes instead of reduce the power of the new stuff
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimmor wrote: I use Kings of War as my example. There is randomness involved (Nerve Tests, Attack, Spells) but most of it is set, Movement rates and Charges. The game revolves mostly around good tactics with the random determining how well those tactics work . Hitting someone in the rear is not a guarantee of Routing them, but its still a really good idea, and this is what 40k is missing. A fair amount of tactical depth seems to have been lost, and im not really sure when that happened.
I watch a lot of battle reports, and I think that tactics are still in the game.
Maybe the problem is with the list building stage now - it is a lot easier these days to create imbalanced armies due to all the new formations and the power creep in the new codexes.
But from what I've seen, as long as both sides create somewhat balanced armies, the games can still go neck and neck and be really close.
@chaosmarauder.
I think you will find if you roll 1000 D6s they will follow the statistical average quite closely.
The way that takes the minimum amount of effort is what GW plc have done - write the rules the way they want them (rule of cool) and let the players decide that if something is not balanced then house rule it or throw it out.
Fixed that for you!
We are asking GW plc to show the same amount of professionalism and effort in writing rules that all the other game companies provide us with.
This is not the fault of the GW game devs but the GW sales department ,and the GW chairman T.Kirby.(All the GW game devs have produced excellent work when they escaped from GW towers.IMO.)
If the rules were written for the current game size and game play of 40k, we would not need to make up over 80 special rules to make the game interesting/fun.
If you like lots of random rolling, just make up some stuff and add it into your house rules if the 'balancers' make the game too 'bland' for you.
Sunstripe wrote: Move the rules online and make it a living rule book. tweek as necessary.
That should be the first step if they truly want balance.
The first step they need to take is to not treat there consumer base as just "people who buy gw stuff"
If they treat people with respect and actually listen back (while filtering out the vitriol) then maybe they could get somewhere. even with a living rule book it wont do much if they just dont care to listen to people that dont have nothing but praise for them
Skipped over the topic a few times because I didn't have time for the essay that would be required to answer, but now here goes: Niv-hammer 40k fixes!
-Nix all formations. Units get what they get for their point cost, not more because you take them as certain arbitrary combos.
-remove cover saves, and work it into BS mods as below.
-Introduce simple BS modifiers: very hard to hit (-2), hard to hit (-1), easy to hit (+1), and very easy to hit (+2). Zooming flyers, shrouded/invis units, gone to ground units in any cover and units standing in heavy cover are very hard to hit, jinking units, stealthy units, gone to ground in the open and guys standing in light cover are hard to hit, vehicles/MC's in general are easy to hit, superheavies in general are very easy to hit. Some exceptions exist. Terrain stacks on other effects, but nothing goes past -2 or +2 total.
-AP rebuilt to reduce armor, not nullify/do nothing. Most weapons in the game lose some AP. (most notably virtually all basic troop weapons.)
-Vehicles: plenty of decent fixes on the forums. I'm a fan of either giving vehicles armor saves or removing the damage chart and effectively making them X wound models.
-Snap shots are gone. "You can't shoot" means you can't shoot.
-overwatch is now: a unit that doesn't shoot in its own shooting phase gains interceptor. If they do not shoot anything in the opponent's movement phase, they may shoot at the first unit to declare an assault against them.
Special Note: if you are going second, all your units are automatically overwatching at the start of the game.
-whoever thought up random charge distance and anyone who supports it are all reassigned to janitorial duty. Assault made a fixed distance again. (Although some things may still alter that distance.)
-all movement effects happen in the movement phase, including running. Jump shoot jump is removed. Jet packs are renamed jump packs and function in line with them. (This is less about balance and more about my pet peeve of half the game being taken up by the same units moving 2-3 times per turn.)
-you may charge after running, getting out of a non-assault transport that stayed still, infiltrating, scouting, or outflanking. (Remember that player 2's units are automatically overwatching on the first turn.)
-random warlord traits and psychic powers are removed. Unnamed Warlords are given a choice of default "low power" traits from your codex, or the option to replace them with traits that cost points. Psychic powers work similarly.
-psychic phase gone. Most buffs and debuffs happen in the movement phase, witch fires in the shooting phase. Return to older quicker-to-resolve psychic format.
-give some low rate of fire heavy weapons the ability to cause more than one wound to a single model.
-Take wounds where you want in a squad, (getting rid of look out sir,) but once you start allocating to a dude from a wound pool, he keeps taking them, so no nob bikers running around with 1 wound each before any losses.
-battle bros is no longer a thing. Only dudes from army x can be in a unit or a transport from army x.
-play test a bit, sprinkle some point changes here and there, and that should about do it.
I watch a lot of battle reports, and I think that tactics are still in the game.
Maybe the problem is with the list building stage now - it is a lot easier these days to create imbalanced armies due to all the new formations and the power creep in the new codexes.
But from what I've seen, as long as both sides create somewhat balanced armies, the games can still go neck and neck and be really close.
Ya, and thats a huge problem. You shouldnt have to do that much work to make a wargame, that i freaking paid money for, balanced. I will, again, use Kings of War. I can very easily make multiple lists with each army and have a pretty good chance of holding my own. Hell ive seen a few 1k point armies that are made of basically nothing but Militia and can still win, because its more about tactics and lest about list building, and thats an issue that 40k has. More and more of the fight is being resolved in List building, and that is GWs fault
@Grimmor.
Totally agree with you 100%.
GW plc decided to reduce the level of tactical complexity in the game , and increase the level of strategic focus, and complication in the rules to compensate.
This was purely to appeal to younger gamers according to Rick Preistley.As GW Sales Department thought that churn and burn of new players was a more profitable focus.(Special rules to pimp the latest releases to children/collectors.)
This speaks volumes, as good game design tends to appeal to new and veteran players a like.Well defined elegant rules are easy to learn and a joy to play.And tactical depth keeps players interested for years.
But as so often is the case, if the man at the top does not understand, then they will push the company in a direction they can understand and express simply, '..in the business of selling toy soldiers to children..' T.Kirby GW C.E.O/Chairman
Picking one player group over another is just flawed logic that reduces sales volumes..(By 2/3 over 12 years in GW case! )
And so that is why T,Kirby is so against any meaningful market research , it WOULD prove him WRONG!
Sorry about the rant...
@niv-mizzet.
A logical list attempting to address lots of symptoms of the core flaws in the game rules.
However, core flaws remain..
1)If you remove Formations, you still have not corrected the core flaw in the 40k F.O.C.In that is uses unit function to restrict use.
Where as all other game use unit rarity to restrict use , and allow more varied narrative lists to be used.
2)Subtract BS value from 7 to find score to hit.'Oddball resolution method'.Requires additional modifiers to add variety back.
And unfortunately when using modifiers to a D6 result you are limited to what you can use.
If we added an opposed stat to BS eg 'Stealth' , we could resolve shooting to hit, close combat to hit, and to damage all in the same way.Opposed values on a table.(Where we can use a wider range of values and fine tune results easier.)
Stealth value would allow us to directly show how hard the unit/model is to hit at range.EG size, skill, silhouette ,equipment , can all be considered and displayed on one stat.
I am happy for light cover to add 1 to a models Stealth value, and heavy cover to add 2 to a models Stealth value.(Which is more intuitive than 'minus shooter to hit score .'IMO.)
I agree that GW 'APs all or nothing nature' is awful and needs to be replaced, as it adds a terrible imbalance in the armour and weapon interaction.
Either weapons with AP value 6, ignore any to save rolls that roll natural 6.(Same as -1 A.S.M.)
This would be a slight modification as values would need to be revised.However, some players like to succeed on the rol of a 6, so may be rejected.
The other way is to use the same method to arrive at save values for all models.
If we give all models an AV from 1 to 10
And all weapons an AP value from 1 to 10.
Then we can use them on a opposed value chart, like we do to hit , and to wound...
I agree any re-write should cover all models in the same way.No artificial separation to try to boost sales .
3)Over watch is a poor mans fix to the core fault of lack of player interaction.Simply using alternating game phase game turn removes the need for over watch entirely.
Pointless Random rolls , were put in to replace the vacuum in the game play the removal of actual tactics left!
Use the Stat line to cover the in game interaction, and randum rolls can be relegated to optional house rules for those that want them.
Clarification .
If all movement happens in the movement phase, units move into assault in their movement phase. I totally agree with tidying up mobility options!
I agree with the removal of random traits, and the psychic phase.(Psychic effect can happen in the appropriate phase.)
4)You still have not addressed the complete lack of depth to Morale and Command and Control aspects of the game.
This leaves shooting and assault competing over the small aspect of killing stuff, which really limits tactical depth.
See how even a reasonable, intelligent and comprehensive list of changes can miss some core issues with the 40k rules?
No disrespect meant to you niv-mizzet, just trying to show how much needs to be done to actually fix the 40k rules.
New Force Organization Chart Common: Unlimited
Uncommon: 1 may be taken for every 2 Common units taken
Rare: 1 may be taken for every 4 Common units taken
Super-Rare: 1 may be taken for every 8 Common units taken
Ex: If an army includes 8 Common units, that army is also permitted to include 4 Uncommon units, 2 Rare units, and one Super-Rare unit.
This does away with multiple Force Organisation Charts, being as it is a formula which works for any sized army, restricting higher value resources to higher value encounters.
And to speed up Combat Resolution:
Changing Ballistic Skill and Cover. The units being shot at can provide a modifier to the Ballistic Skill of the units shooting at them, up to +2 or -2. Ballistic Skill now is the value of the highest die result which results in a hit (no more 7-BS). After modifiers, if a BS is 6 or higher, it’s an auto-hit, no roll needed. If after modifiers it’s 0 the unit can’t shoot at that particular target.
Modifiers could include things like size of the target, speed of the Target, Point Blank Range, stealth gear, etc:
Discontinuing Armor Saves, Invulnerable Saves and Toughness, by incorporating them all into Armor Class. Units would all have a base AC, with modifiers for Armor and Wargear (such as Storm Shields, Iron Halos, etc). Everything would have Hit Points rather than some being called Wounds and some being called Hull Points. There would still be Glancing and Penetrating hits. Glancing hits would just be the lost hit-point. Penetrating Hits would remove a hit point, plus an additional effect determined by a chart. AP on weapons would be modifiers on the roll to determine the results of Penetrating Hits. Units would have a classification as part of their profiles which determines if they roll the mechanical or organic side of the Penetrating hit chart.
Wound Allocation: Defender Allocates Wounds. However, Wounds must be applied to the same model until it is removed from play before Wounds may be allocated to other models in the unit.
@Bill1138.
I would suggest the first choice in the new F.O.C would be the HQ unit.
If we include several force types for each faction, then the HQ selected could set the 'theme of the force'.
EG in a SM list ,
A HQ mounted on bikes would be the start of a Recon /Fast Attack army.(White Scars)
Common units could be SM bike Squads , Scout bike Squads, Land Speeders.
A Jump Pack equipped HQ would be the start of a 'Deep striking /airborne assault force.)(Raven Guard/Blood Angels.)
These could have Jump Pack equipped Assault marines, and Drop pod tac Squads, and Land Speeders as common units.
I would prefer the next level of units to be called Support units .As they are more specialized/ restricted in the force,And are there to support the common units in achieving the mission goals..
And the final level of rarity could be called Specialist units.These are the units that are very limited in the force.
So we have HQ and Common units making up the 'Core' of the themed force.And Support units and Specialist units are chosen by the player to fine tune the play style of the force to suit them.
I think 3 levels of unit rarity work well in other games , (core support, specialized, Epic, combat , weapons , support F.O.W., company /brigade/corps Firefly etc).
I am not sure the 4th level (Super Rare)is really needed for 40k.?
However the simple ratio method you propose is a good way to scale the F.O.C to any size.
I agree that BS and cover rules needs to be re-written.(However I have stated my preference above.)
I would warn against rolling toughness into armour value/class, as many people associate the 3 stage damage resolution with '40k ness.'
(Its what I have found after trying out several damage resolution methods. )
But having one standard way to resolve damage is a good idea, as it removes pointless complication.
If vehicles are suppressed by penetrating hits like all the other units in the game.
And physical damage reduces a multiple hit point models movement or attacks, for every hit point lost.
Do we need to have a separate chart?
(We can have a 'disastrous damage rule'.When a model takes twice as much damage (or over), than it has remaining hit points it explodes/rampages and causes hits on all units within 5" blast template damage equal to the number of excess git points lost.)
@ Brutus_Apex.
I works better if you decide on the end game play, (eg detailed unit interaction in a modern battle game.)
Then write the rules specifically for that game play.
Then write the army composition lists.
And after all that then you can start looking at allocation of Point Values to determine relative in game worth. (Starting costing with basic humans is the most sensible method, I agree. )
@Martel732.
I agree that +/-2 modifiers when using a D6 directly in a deterministic way, have a large impact on the game play.
However, if you use them to modify stats that are opposed on a chart, to give the required dice roll.There can be more finer adjustment of results.
Lanrak wrote: @Bill1138.
I would suggest the first choice in the new F.O.C would be the HQ unit.
If we include several force types for each faction, then the HQ selected could set the 'theme of the force'.
I'm curious about this concept of the rarity of units being dependent on the HQ. How would you note this on the profiles, and is this not simply turning the various HQs essential components of what are essentially themed formations? Is there some reason that if dividing the unit choices by rarity, you couldn't simply have a variety of options at each tier to allow you to theme an army that way?
I am not sure the 4th level (Super Rare)is really needed for 40k.?
As I put it the Super Rare units would be those probably best left to Apocalypse games (Super Heavies and Gargantuan Creatures). The other three tiers would be what are typically allowed in most games.
However the simple ratio method you propose is a good way to scale the F.O.C to any size.
Thanks!
I would warn against rolling toughness into armour value/class, as many people associate the 3 stage damage resolution with '40k ness.'
(Its what I have found after trying out several damage resolution methods. )
Yeh, I've seen that response. However, some of the changes I think would be beneficial to game balance would add time to the game turn, so I was seeing if there were a way of simplifying and shortening combat resolution. I thought if we could simply remove the charts and any math beyond simple single-digit addition/subtraction as well as resolving combat in 2 rolls per Wound instead of 3, it would drastically speed up the game.
What if instead, everything has an Armor Class, and Invunerable Saves become modifiers to the Armor Class, while Armor Saves remain saves? This way if a unit would have a 2+3++ due to Terminator Armor and a Storm Shield by the current rules, the unit would have a bonus to his base Armor Class from the Storm Shield, but would still benefit from the Armor Save (unless the weapon's AP nullified it). I think a change is needed because it doesn't make sense for a Terminator with a Storm Shield to be just as vulnerable to Bolter or Lasgun Fire as a Terminator without one.
But having one standard way to resolve damage is a good idea, as it removes pointless complication.
Thanks again!
If vehicles are suppressed by penetrating hits like all the other units in the game.
And physical damage reduces a multiple hit point models movement or attacks, for every hit point lost.
Do we need to have a separate chart?
(We can have a 'disastrous damage rule'.When a model takes twice as much damage (or over), than it has remaining hit points it explodes/rampages and causes hits on all units within 5" blast template damage equal to the number of excess git points lost.)
Just some ideas to discuss..
I was thinking that if Toughness and Armor Class were rolled into one spectrum for all units, then there would need to be two sides to the damage chart for pens (similarly the Thunderblitz and Stomp tables have different effects for vehicle and non-vehicle targets) because it doesn't make sense for organic infantry to explode damaging the unit around them when they die.
So if we keep the current Vehicle Damage Table, The parallel table for non-vehicles could be something like:
1-3: ????
4: Dazed. The model may not make a shoot action for the following Game Turn.
5: Knocked Prone. The model may not make any move or shoot actions during the following Game Turn.
6: Strikes True. The model is removed as a casualty.
7: Passes Through. The model is removed as a casualty, and one other model in the unit receives a Wound.
That serves as a visual for the concept, but if anyone has a better idea I'll gladly hear it.
@Bill1138.
I did not explain the idea of themed forces that well.
If each faction has several different themed forces, eg using the old Klanz, Craftworlds, Regiments, Chapters etc, as examples.
Then in each different theme , units will be classed differently, and some list can have specialty themed units.(EG Boar Boys Wild Boys and Squiggoths in a Snakebite Klan list only)
EG for Orks we could have..
Bad Moons List.(Biggest guns and best Equipment.)
Blood Axe list,(Special forces and IG equipment. Sneeky gitz that trade with 'Umies.)
Deff Skulls list.(General Ork list as Deff Skull borrow from other K;anz.)
Evil Sunz List .(Mechanized/mounted infantry.)
Goff List(Hoard Infantry.)
Kult Of Speed List.(Recon.rapid reaction force.)
Snakebite List (Primative hoard .)
I think the HQ unit is going to be indicative of the theme of the list in most cases.I should not have said the HQ sets the theme.
I am not saying rolling armour and toughness into a single defense stat will not work.(It does allow quick and simple damage resolution vs an attack stat.)
Its just I am not sure its the best method to use as lots of 40K players like the 3 stage damage resolution.
Large monsters can rampage before they die, if you want MCs and Vehicles to be treated similarly.
I think 40k has become mired in USR's and incredible boons for formations. Force Organization is so complex and varied that it would be incredibly difficult to balance all the elements and moving parts of the game against one another. It's an absolute mess.
To balance the game, I believe simplicity need be restored. Too many parts of the game are slow and clunky, and the numerous bonuses and combos available are too vast. Perhaps if these rules functioned smoothly and interacted with other rules in a smooth way, I wouldn't object to how numerous they are - but at this point I really feel some limiters are necessary to steer the game in a good direction.
I'm in the camp hoping for a new edition that significantly alters the mechanics of the game without it becoming AoS. If this were paired with push in a new direction creatively, I could be into that as well. Not that I believe this is around the corner - at this point I can't tell if GW has the capacity to do such a thing.
Thokt wrote: I think 40k has become mired in USR's and incredible boons for formations. Force Organization is so complex and varied that it would be incredibly difficult to balance all the elements and moving parts of the game against one another. It's an absolute mess.
To balance the game, I believe simplicity need be restored. Too many parts of the game are slow and clunky, and the numerous bonuses and combos available are too vast. Perhaps if these rules functioned smoothly and interacted with other rules in a smooth way, I wouldn't object to how numerous they are - but at this point I really feel some limiters are necessary to steer the game in a good direction.
I'm in the camp hoping for a new edition that significantly alters the mechanics of the game without it becoming AoS. If this were paired with push in a new direction creatively, I could be into that as well. Not that I believe this is around the corner - at this point I can't tell if GW has the capacity to do such a thing.
The first thing I always worry about when people talk about rewriting and making things more "simple" is AoS. And though there were a couple of things i did like that AoS did, those did not outweigh the bad. I still find the biggest "imbalance" in the game is that some codex have formations and some don't. those that don't, really lag behind. Now some haven't been done well, blood angels comes to mind. But most of the codex that have had formation updates within the last year or two are relatively on the same footing, and can win games if played to their strengths. The only codex that i have seen that is on the extreme of imbalance is the eldar book, and that is mostly point costs and they way they can spam D and special weapons now. If it wasn't for those things we wouldn't be even talking about them as an issue. Tau are strong but certainly not unbeatable.
The slippery slope of talking about "balancing" 40k, to me comes down to two schools of thought, are we talking about balancing on the competitive level? or are we talking about balance on the casual level. because those are two VASTLY different animals. But a total re-release of the games edition, and codex at the same time isn't the answer. Because if they did that, we wouldn't be talking about "balance" we would be talking about "money grabs" Lets call a spade a spade.
Things need to be more complex, not more simple. That's just the way it is with so many different units in the game. Making it more simple gives us less granularity when we need more.
The game play of 40k needs to be more complex. eg more tactical depth.
But the rules for the game need to be simplified, eg remove pointless complication.
Straightforward rules written with clarity brevity and elegance , can deliver more tactical depth and game complexity.
However , deciding what the game play of 40k should be is another thing GW plc do not want to be bothered with.
GWs rules for 40k are more like a scrap book full of cool ideas, but without any real focus on practical implications or clarity of purpose in terms of being an instruction set on how to play the game.
deviantduck wrote: For starters, limit the number of ICs that may join to a unit to 1. So no IC may join another IC. That will get rid of most shenanigans.
Unfortunately, the only way to actually balance this game would require both a complete ground-up rewrite of the rules combined with complete overhauls of all the codices. My first thing would be to put a moratorium on book releases for probably a year. For that time, to make revenue, they would concentrate on releasing updated model kits for all of the long neglected units that are out there. Take that year and rebuild things from the ground up with playtesting and balancing at the forefront. Ditch unbound entirely, reintroduce the FOC, and while I don't think you have to totally trash formations, give formations appropriate point costs and make sure the benefits of the formations are thorughly tested and costed. The codices would definitely be smaller and much cheaper than they are currently. I would look at them almost as a loss leader for getting people to buy the stuff you're really making money on, which are the models. For the rulebook, I would have 2 versions made, 1 stripped down book like the one they include with the boxed sets and one "Collector's Edition" with all of the fluff and bells and whistles.
Finally, if given COMPLETE free rein, I would get rid of the one sacred cow that's hamstringing a lot of the ideas presented before: the d6 - there's not enough variety available in the d6 system for all of the varied units that are out there. We would need a system based either off a d10 or a d12 to make this really hum smoothly.
There is a simple way to play with the current rules and make things fairer - a handicap system. If you lose a game, you get 5% more points for the next one. If you win, you get 5% fewer points.
This would work if you have a regular gaming partner or go to a club - even if you play different people each week. Although for tournaments you'd need a standard points limit.
A handicap means you can use the models you like and have a chance of winning. Choosing models because they're competitive would be a thing of the past. There'd be more variety and more themed lists.
For some reason people seem to think you have to have equal points for each player for it to be fair, but that isn't true!
I havent read all 5 pages so forgive me jumping in but this is a great post topic. I think the game could be balanced with a community handicap system on top of points. EG some units would be zero handicap and you can take as many as you like. Some might even be NEGATIVE handicap. IE they are so rubbish taking then actually GIVES you better options elsewhere. Good units would be POSITIVE handicap.
Then games would be like this: 1850 points zero handicap.
So Eldar, Tau and Necrons are going to struggle as alpha codex's because almost all of their codex choices would have positive handicap scores.
Lets take eldar as an example WraithKnights would be (say) plus 100 handicap each unless you have one already then the 2nd is 150 handicap. Crappy units might be negative handicap like storm guardians vibro canon and vypers without upgrades
If you end up in a 1850 zero handicap games and you want.to take 2 Wraith Knights you need to DEDUCT 250 points from your 1850 (and take 1600 points) unless you take 40 storm guardians on foot (with no special weapons plus no warlock or IC) who have a balance of plus 80 each squad of 20 and you take 3 vibro canon cos they have a negative handicap of 10 each and 3 vypers with no upgrades which remove 20 each. That way you can take 1850 points again
Who is going to decide on the method that is used to arrive at these handicap values?
Who is going to agree to this method?
Who will agree to these imposed values?
Who is going to organize it ?
How are you going to deal with the imbalance in the core rules?
Lanrak wrote: Who is going to decide on the method that is used to arrive at these handicap values?
Who is going to agree to this method?
Who will agree to these imposed values?
Who is going to organize it ?
How are you going to deal with the imbalance in the core rules?
that is the same question 4 ways plus another question ^^
Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, the community and software - there could be playtesting - including community software (like an app) that can be written to use battlescribes xml data formats where volunteers simply append them and then you punch in who won (EG: a simple points left on last turn is a good one)
Q5 the handicap of those units
Automatically Appended Next Post: you have to remember I am talking about tournament play here - so it could be part of tournament rules to post results
I also gave this some thought - if there was a handicap imbalance you could either "ask" your opponent to remove the quantity in points from their list
or (and this is interesting, at least to me)
have a rule dynamic - so that you can have "advantages for points"
here are some examples off the top of my head:
- 50 points imbalance - one unit gets scout special rule
- 100 point imbalance - one unit can arrive from reserve automatically on turn 1
- 200 points - one unit can start game in combat with an opponent unit
now.
i know the last one seems crazy but it really isn't it could simply be that the unit in close combat *started* the game in close combat because that is the *ambush* that caused the bullets to fly
@ConanMan.
Ok so what part of the 40k playing community are you referring to?As far as I can tell most tournament organizers use some form of handicap system, to try to improve the balance a bit.
But they do not all use the same method.
And what about those people who prefer more narrative games?Why should some units be so bad at the concept level everyone sees tham as a handicap if they take them?And some players claim to be 'narrative players' just because they take these units with limited function and wave it in the face of everyone else as a virtue!
How is this going to fix pick up and play games, and free them of all the negotiation before hand?
And please do not be so dismissive of the massive imbalance problems created by the current core rules.
GW has spent years trying to remove all player skill from the game and replace it with randum rolls.
How is this handicap system going to address the alpha strike problem cause by alternating game turns?
How is this handicap system going to address the imbalance between shooting and assault that has been in the core rules since 3rd ed?
How is the handicap systems going to deal with the all or nothing natures of the AP systems and so many special rules?
If the core rules covered more of the game play and special rules were kept to a minimum, like other well written war game.
Balancing 40k to a similar level to suit everyone would be just as straight forward.
I don't agree the game is highly random. I've lost 2 games in 2 years. And I can tell you what the odds are for any given situation in my head. I just do it naturally. This is not a boast, it helps me guesstimate how useful various tactics are.
Ok so firstly the mechanics being bad. We all agree there is a derth on assault. But not all units have it so bad. I think space wolves can partially be made to work. Especially with TWC with storm sheilds and Wulfen. But then harlies have it bad. In this game context Assault units simply would have a negative balance. You have to then assign more or less of a handicap negative balance from TRULY bad close combat troops separated from mere fairly bad. Not only by points but also by a handicap.
The implication would be, either your army has a heroic negative balance (no shame losing) or you get to take some sort of bonus before game or you get to take 2 imperial knights. That sort of thing.
I am a software developer actually open source. I have seen similar things get balance. I think I could probably work out the handicaps for my fave two codexes, and you can too.
The handicap system doesn't "deal" with an issues it compensates you I you endure them. The implication is you would (to be competitive) ally ur self back to a zero balance. OR suffer a army tax. I think it would make 40k much more interesting (variety of oft left out units) and mean it would be hard to face 6 imperial Knights. I think that basically under costed units could have a handicap tax and over powered codexes might even need allies to ever really take. It gives sisters a role it gives dark eldar wytches a role. I..e better to take them than have points deducted
ConanMan wrote: I don't agree the game is highly random. I've lost 2 games in 2 years. And I can tell you what the odds are for any given situation in my head. I just do it naturally. This is not a boast, it helps me guesstimate how useful various tactics are.
Ok so firstly the mechanics being bad. We all agree there is a derth on assault. But not all units have it so bad. I think space wolves can partially be made to work. Especially with TWC with storm sheilds and Wulfen. But then harlies have it bad. In this game context Assault units simply would have a negative balance. You have to then assign more or less of a handicap negative balance from TRULY bad close combat troops separated from mere fairly bad. Not only by points but also by a handicap.
The implication would be, either your army has a heroic negative balance (no shame losing) or you get to take some sort of bonus before game or you get to take 2 imperial knights. That sort of thing.
I am a software developer actually open source. I have seen similar things get balance. I think I could probably work out the handicaps for my fave two codexes, and you can too.
The handicap system doesn't "deal" with an issues it compensates you I you endure them. The implication is you would (to be competitive) ally ur self back to a zero balance. OR suffer a army tax. I think it would make 40k much more interesting (variety of oft left out units) and mean it would be hard to face 6 imperial Knights. I think that basically under costed units could have a handicap tax and over powered codexes might even need allies to ever really take. It gives sisters a role it gives dark eldar wytches a role. I..e better to take them than have points deducted
Basically, this just fixes to point costs, though. Oh, that overcosted unit of posessed? You take it and you get 30 extra points for your tournament game, effectively negating 30 of the points you just spent on it. So, basically, it now costs 30 points less. What you're saying is that the only thing you need to balance 40k is better point costs.
Not really, it's saying that weaker units WILL be chosen. Basically under costed units would become rarer and over costed units more plentiful.
If the handicap was 100% right it would work. You'd see a mix of powerful and crap units in an army. And your opponent would have the same too. A mix. Points adjustment doesn't give you that. The main benefit is how good are you at getting full value out of your crappiest units. If you're good you win.
Most old codexes suffer from useless out of date units. I am only suggesting a handicap for tournament competitive play. I.E. you could still use (and ignore) it in the social sphere but there it'd be merely useful to know how op a list is. I.e. if I was playing sisters of battle with a minus 600 handicap and I got my a$$ handed by a plus 550 list 3 WraithKnights I'd not feel too bad even if it didn't use the handicap system we were both 1850 on the table I could take a look after sort of thing and not feel so bothered.
Everyone seems agreed that point costs are a mess. However, I think the best long-term solution suggested thus far is to to start with an extremely basic unit, and balance the costs of all other units up from there.
The suggestion of leaving some units over-costed, but adding modifiers to the total number of points allowed just seems to add too many steps.
ex: If a unit should be 100 points, and it is currently 150 points, the first method would simply reduce the cost of the unit to 100 points, while the second method would leave it at 150 points, but increase the army's total pool of points by 50. They both get you there, but the one is far more user friendly.
@Bill1138.
Are they any basic units left in 40k?I thought they all had special rules of some sort now.
Accurate point costs can only be proven if the relationship between in game effects are proportional.
40k does not even use the same resolution methods across all units so how can you prove the values are accurate?
I am sure you can get then closer than the laughable mess that GW plc sell you.
But how can you accurately cost the 'all or nothing' type rules GW seem to prefer?
The handicap system would be a good patchwork while working on a full rewrite, but it's only a patchwork system. I still contend you can only fix this game with a complete rewrite of the rules and the codices - anything else is barely useful
Battlesong wrote: The handicap system would be a good patchwork while working on a full rewrite, but it's only a patchwork system. I still contend you can only fix this game with a complete rewrite of the rules and the codices - anything else is barely useful
At the very least, they need to do away with the current release model. It's almost impossible to balance two codices against each other when they are released a year and a half apart with six other codices between them. I realize that releasing every codex at the same time isn't really feasible, but within six months wouldn't be unreasonable. As others have mentioned, though, the idea of an online "living codex" would probably be the best idea since it would be easy to update, and rules for new models could be added as they are released.
@EnTyme.
If the core rules and stat line covered the majority of the game play,and GW had a clearly defined design brief that they stuck to across an entire edition of the game.
The current release schedule would not be such a problem.
But as the design brief can change between codex releases, and the core rules are inadequate, and have to rely on layers of extra rules to cover the game play.
Any issues with the current release method are magnified a thousand fold.
I agree a more balance focused release would be better.But without the significant changes to the core rules a re-write would bring.
Any attempt at game balance will be severely hampered.
Martel732 wrote: Purely mathematical won't cut it because of synergitc effects. You need empirical testing.
You need a LOT of testing. playtesting is how lots of games are balanaced out. and more importantly once those imbalances are found then the company actually HAS to act on it. which is where i think GW is failing at.
I dont mind the Purely mathematical approach to get close to a final game though.
Averages should be Average and makes it simpler to understand that 3s for most stats = chump basic dude at a glance.
Martel732 wrote: Purely mathematical won't cut it because of synergitc effects. You need empirical testing.
I firmly agree; lots of playtesting and playtesting with the intent of breaking the game with everything. If they ever get this, then they'll be able to move on to the actual work on fixing the game. As it is now, it seems that each book is written in a vacuum and each unit and formation in each book is simply given rules that the designers feel fit the fluff and then influenced by what they need to sell. Basically the absolute worst way to design a game......
While we are discussing balance.I think it is important to allocate point values at the level of the interaction.
If the game is all about unit interaction, then allocate the point values at the unit level.
Not allocate the point values for the model/equipment/weapons that make up the units.(Totally missing the synergistic effects within units.)
And then try to balance things up at the army level adjusting point values instead of restrictions to availability.(Totally missing the synergistic effects at the army composition level.)
In fact GW plc are very consistent in using the worst practices in game development and game balancing .
See GW plc are the best in the world , at doing things the worst way possible.
I like the idea of a "floating point system" that GW can control.... if theyd exercise that control week to week.
I also like the idea of unit costs. This unit is made of 5 marines with this cost. This unit is made of 10 with this. It would take away lots of versatility.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What about the 9th age guys?
I don't like it very much.
The main reason is that this project wants to continue "the spirit of the 8th edition" which is not the best idea imho (those who skipped warhammer because of 8th edition will not come back and those and for new players it doesn't matter what the rules looked like before. So this only suits the small group which liked the 8th)
If you want to make the 8th edition of 40k, you need a new ruleset written from scratch, with the best of 2nd-7th edition and new ideas (and/or the next logic step for existing rules, like "Decurion for all")
If you do it like T9A and just make a cleaned up 7th with "balanced" army rules, people will continue to play the "official" rules because there is no real advantage for using it over already existing house rules
Weapon(s)
Similar incl range BSStAP special rules as multipliers.
Start with USRs cause blanket 5% per rule (ATSKNF, RELENTLESS, JetBike, IC, monsterous creature unlocks garg creature =10% etc )
And your math failed
First one, never sum up values, you need to multiply them
Second one, you need to work with probabilities and not fixed values
It is more like, (chance to hit * rate of fire * (expected turns per game/range value)*(chance to hit in CC * attacks * chance to wound) * chance to take a wound * wounds)
Than you have the problem that AP values as used by 40k cannot be calculated because AP2 is worthless against armies without a 2+ save
I tried to get it working for 4 months now and failed, because it only works for standard troops without synergies (A normal Space Marine would cost around 15 points, but a calculated IG soldier will cost 1 point than, while a unit of both will not cost 10 times the base + equipment)
The issue with any mathematical approach is as people have pointed out is synergy between rules and stats.
If we just go with Doktor_G's formula.
(WS + BS + S + T + (7-SV) + Ld) x W
First off it leaves out attacks, which make a big difference as far as WS is concerned. A unit with WS 10 and 1 attack is still bad at close combat. Beyond that lets look at 2 hypothetical units that are the same cost.
(WS 10 + BS 1 +S 10 + T 1 + 1 (6+ save) + LD 5) x 2 wounds
(WS 4 + BS 4 + S 4 + T4 + 4(3+ Save) +LD 8) x 2 wounds
Each of these would be 56 points, but the first unit will die in a stiff breeze, vs the far more durable second unit.
Further more a unit that is specialized for shooting would get less value from higher stats in things like S and WS, than a CC unit.
Same with rules like fleet for non-CC units, or Jink on units with good invunerable saves, or a unit with NO guns.
I feel in general what would need to happen is for GW to do away with the Codex model and go to a release schedule that releases a few models for each faction at a time. This allows for small additions to be playtested against the current system.
I feel in general what would need to happen is for GW to do away with the Codex model and go to a release schedule that releases a few models for each faction at a time.
You know that GW has already done this?
We will never see a regular Codex release again, just Campaign Books and Formation Upgrades
And GW will never ever do playtesting or think twice about how good rules fit into their current system. Even point values are chosen randomly or just because they look "cool"
I believe Breng77 was trying to say start with the few basic HQ unit and core units for all the factions, and get them balanced at the unit level.By heavy and diligent play testing.
Then AFTER the cores of the factions are balanced to the satisfaction of the majority of player,Then add a few more units to each faction.
Balance these new units to each other and the core units to the satisfaction of the majority of players then rinse and repeat.
This is the sensible and practical way to balance a war game, ,and is basically how most game companies balance games.AFAIK.
Lanrak wrote: I believe Breng77 was trying to say start with the few basic HQ unit and core units for all the factions, and get them balanced at the unit level.By heavy and diligent play testing.
Then AFTER the cores of the factions are balanced to the satisfaction of the majority of player,Then add a few more units to each faction.
Balance these new units to each other and the core units to the satisfaction of the majority of players then rinse and repeat.
This is the sensible and practical way to balance a war game, ,and is basically how most game companies balance games.AFAIK.
I fully agree that this would be an extremely effective way to balance a game, but can you imagine the backlash from the community if we were told all but a few of our units are now (temporarily) illegal in the game? You'd basically squatting the entire game for a short time. I'm a pretty laid back guy, but if you told me I couldn't use my Wraiths because they haven't been updated yet, I'll be the first to tell you exactly where you can stick those new rules no matter how balanced they are.
Martel732 wrote: You shouldn't be able to use Wraiths as they exist currently anyway. They are stupid broken.
"Stupidly broken" might be a little harsh. "Seriously undercosted" would be a better description. Even then, they're only really bad in the Decurion (which is one of the things that I agree needs to be rebalanced).
Martel732 wrote: You shouldn't be able to use Wraiths as they exist currently anyway. They are stupid broken.
"Stupidly broken" might be a little harsh. "Seriously undercosted" would be a better description. Even then, they're only really bad in the Decurion (which is one of the things that I agree needs to be rebalanced).
The amount of damage they sponge puts them into "stupidly broken" territory. There is no assault unit they can't tarpit basically forever. They are a hit and run check.
Martel732 wrote: You shouldn't be able to use Wraiths as they exist currently anyway. They are stupid broken.
"Stupidly broken" might be a little harsh. "Seriously undercosted" would be a better description. Even then, they're only really bad in the Decurion (which is one of the things that I agree needs to be rebalanced).
The amount of damage they sponge puts them into "stupidly broken" territory. There is no assault unit they can't tarpit basically forever. They are a hit and run check.
I'll remember that the next time my 6 Wraiths are getting taken down in two rounds by Wulfen/TWC.
To clarify, Martel, I fully agree the Wraiths are deserving of a nerf, but there are still ways to counter them. Ignore them and kill the Spyder. Now they lack RP and you just have to get through 3+/3++. Still pretty tough, but any dedicated assault unit should be able to hold their own considering Wraith pretty much have to rely on 6s to wound to actually bring most things down. Bump the Wraith up by about 10ppm and they're actually pretty balanced.
@En Tyme
What is wrong with releasing next edition beta for play testing to the community, during the 4 years the current edition runs for?
Most game companies only release the next edition of the game after they have play tested it to death to make sure it is an actual improvement in terms of game play and game balance.
GW are just going to cash grab release* for the length of this edition any way.(Little to no play testing , but a crap ton of special snowflake rules.)
So why not try to fix the core issues before the next edition rolls round?
Martel732 wrote: You shouldn't be able to use Wraiths as they exist currently anyway. They are stupid broken.
"Stupidly broken" might be a little harsh. "Seriously undercosted" would be a better description. Even then, they're only really bad in the Decurion (which is one of the things that I agree needs to be rebalanced).
The amount of damage they sponge puts them into "stupidly broken" territory. There is no assault unit they can't tarpit basically forever. They are a hit and run check.
I'll remember that the next time my 6 Wraiths are getting taken down in two rounds by Wulfen/TWC.
To clarify, Martel, I fully agree the Wraiths are deserving of a nerf, but there are still ways to counter them. Ignore them and kill the Spyder. Now they lack RP and you just have to get through 3+/3++. Still pretty tough, but any dedicated assault unit should be able to hold their own considering Wraith pretty much have to rely on 6s to wound to actually bring most things down. Bump the Wraith up by about 10ppm and they're actually pretty balanced.
I hate the SW so much. I've got nothing that can touch Wraiths. Nothing.
Lanrak wrote: I believe Breng77 was trying to say start with the few basic HQ unit and core units for all the factions, and get them balanced at the unit level.By heavy and diligent play testing.
Then AFTER the cores of the factions are balanced to the satisfaction of the majority of player,Then add a few more units to each faction.
Balance these new units to each other and the core units to the satisfaction of the majority of players then rinse and repeat.
This is the sensible and practical way to balance a war game, ,and is basically how most game companies balance games.AFAIK.
I fully agree that this would be an extremely effective way to balance a game, but can you imagine the backlash from the community if we were told all but a few of our units are now (temporarily) illegal in the game? You'd basically squatting the entire game for a short time. I'm a pretty laid back guy, but if you told me I couldn't use my Wraiths because they haven't been updated yet, I'll be the first to tell you exactly where you can stick those new rules no matter how balanced they are.
You don't need to "squat" any units. You just stop releasing any new rules/units until the playtesting and balancing is done and then release the new rules as one big release. I agree that it would be pretty awful to just say "we know (unit x) has serious issues so it's removed from the game until the releases" and would not be for that in any way, shape, or form
Lanrak wrote: I believe Breng77 was trying to say start with the few basic HQ unit and core units for all the factions, and get them balanced at the unit level.By heavy and diligent play testing.
Then AFTER the cores of the factions are balanced to the satisfaction of the majority of player,Then add a few more units to each faction.
Balance these new units to each other and the core units to the satisfaction of the majority of players then rinse and repeat.
This is the sensible and practical way to balance a war game, ,and is basically how most game companies balance games.AFAIK.
I fully agree that this would be an extremely effective way to balance a game, but can you imagine the backlash from the community if we were told all but a few of our units are now (temporarily) illegal in the game? You'd basically squatting the entire game for a short time. I'm a pretty laid back guy, but if you told me I couldn't use my Wraiths because they haven't been updated yet, I'll be the first to tell you exactly where you can stick those new rules no matter how balanced they are.
You don't need to "squat" any units. You just stop releasing any new rules/units until the playtesting and balancing is done and then release the new rules as one big release. I agree that it would be pretty awful to just say "we know (unit x) has serious issues so it's removed from the game until the releases" and would not be for that in any way, shape, or form
This would be my approach. A simple point FAQ would tide the game over for a while. Most people would agree that WraithKnights would be more fair at 500 or 600 pts.
So why not try to fix the core issues before the next edition rolls round?
Because GW is a company that makes models for collectors and write stories about them and not rules for gaming
They just have some books with gaming rules to please those collectors who also want to play with their stuff
Their books are mainly there for story telling and background information and not to actually play a game.
If we want to have something we can call "gaming rules" for the next edition we have to do this on our own
Lanrak wrote: @En Tyme
What is wrong with releasing next edition beta for play testing to the community, during the 4 years the current edition runs for?
Most game companies only release the next edition of the game after they have play tested it to death to make sure it is an actual improvement in terms of game play and game balance.
GW are just going to cash grab release* for the length of this edition any way.(Little to no play testing , but a crap ton of special snowflake rules.)
So why not try to fix the core issues before the next edition rolls round?
If we're talking about beta testing, that's another thing entirely. I thought you were basically talking about launching 8th edition with only a barebones CAD for each army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I hate the SW so much. I've got nothing that can touch Wraiths. Nothing.
There are now four SW players at my FLGS. Of the last six games I have played, five have been against Team Jacob. It pains my Scandinavian heritage to say this, but I'm starting to legitimately hate them. A lot of it has to do with the fact that as a Necron player, I have to sit and watch people talk gak on my faction day in and day out, yet the equally broken new SW Decurion gets a free pass for some reason. If you don't think it's broken, you obviously haven't played against a competent player running it. I've heard the new Demon formation is even worse, but I haven't seen it yet, so I won't comment. Sorry to sidetrack the thread here.
Lanrak wrote: I believe Breng77 was trying to say start with the few basic HQ unit and core units for all the factions, and get them balanced at the unit level.By heavy and diligent play testing.
Then AFTER the cores of the factions are balanced to the satisfaction of the majority of player,Then add a few more units to each faction.
Balance these new units to each other and the core units to the satisfaction of the majority of players then rinse and repeat.
This is the sensible and practical way to balance a war game, ,and is basically how most game companies balance games.AFAIK.
I fully agree that this would be an extremely effective way to balance a game, but can you imagine the backlash from the community if we were told all but a few of our units are now (temporarily) illegal in the game? You'd basically squatting the entire game for a short time. I'm a pretty laid back guy, but if you told me I couldn't use my Wraiths because they haven't been updated yet, I'll be the first to tell you exactly where you can stick those new rules no matter how balanced they are.
Lanrak had it about right. Malifaux did just what you describe when they released their new edition, ~half of the units in the game did not have an official release until 1 year into the game release. However, the second half was in open beta with free rules online for playtesting. I think the issue would be that GW has too many units and factions. Malifaux released something like 15 units for each of their 7 factions in the original release. The problem GW runs into is they would have to do just about he opposite 7 units for each of their 15ish factions.
Were I to break down the factions into partial playtest I would probably go with.
Generic HQ -2-3 per faction, no psykers to start leave the psyker rules until a later release
Elites - 2 per faction
Troops -2 per faction
Fast- 2 per faction
Heavy- 2 per faction
Probably start with mostly infantry units, then add other types in later releases. SO you put out the first release and the first open beta at edition release. Playtest and release rules every ~6 months.
I agree it would drive people away, but I also think it is the only way for things to end up truly balanced.
Breng77 wrote: Were I to break down the factions into partial playtest I would probably go with.
Generic HQ -2-3 per faction, no psykers to start leave the psyker rules until a later release
Elites - 2 per faction
Troops -2 per faction
Fast- 2 per faction
Heavy- 2 per faction
Probably start with mostly infantry units, then add other types in later releases. SO you put out the first release and the first open beta at edition release. Playtest and release rules every ~6 months.
I agree it would drive people away, but I also think it is the only way for things to end up truly balanced.
What if this were presented as a Beta, whose rules could be downloaded for free? Players who want to keep using the current rules, but players who want more balanced games download the new rules, and provide their post-playtest feedback on a forum linked to the page. It would start out with a couple basic units of each category as you suggested, and when those are as balanced as they can be they start adding the rest of the units.
They get all of the free beta-testing they want, and players get to play the improving rules for free until the Beta ends, at which point the updated Core Rules and Codexes will all be released simultaneously.
The Codexes and Core Rules would be just the rules, and relevant pictures. All of the extra lore could be sold separately in its own book, so people who want the lore have it all in one place, and the rest of us have cheaper, smaller rulebooks to carry around.
The problem with a beta only situation is that fewer people will participate in it. If it is beta only many people will still only use the current rules. The other issue with releasing core rules and codexes in one big release is that it is a poor buisiness plan as new releases are what keep the player buying things. A beta would be better than nothing, but would have a lot less player buy in than a smaller beta, then a release, then a second beta, then another release, etc.
The other issue is that trying to rewrite and beta test the whole system at one time (for a single release) would take years to achieve.
@Breng77.
Oddly enough lots of the war game companies out there grow their customer base by having good rule sets.
So they are not locked into thinking they have to maximize returns of a shrinking customer base.
It is quite apparent GW plc are just going to sell toy soldiers to their loyal collectors and the rules for 40k are seen as just an additional sales tool.
So any actual attempt at actual game development and game balance has to come from the community.
However as there are lots of people who think 40k is,
a)Great as it is,
b)Just needs a few more special rules ,
c)Can be fixed with a few house rules,
d)A skirmish game,
e)A complete mess that needs complete and total ground up rewrite focusing on detailed unit interaction.
f)Just needs to borrow a few ideas from game X.
And many more....
I think it is important to be absolutely clear what any fan project is going to attempt to do .
I have gone into more detail in the fixing 40k general concepts and ideas thread...
@Lanrak, many try to grow, but they also think about maximizing returns on their existing base. I cannot think of many miniatures games that don't have a consistent flow of new units/rules. Most don't do it like GW where there is a continual shift of balance to drive sales, but instead put out new cool balanced units that people want to have.
Once the game was balanced, they could go back to releasing Codexes one at a time. However, it is vital that new updates improve the game's balance, and don't simply make one faction stronger than the others.
But the initial release needs to be all at once, because balanced Codexes should not be up against the broken nonsense currently in the game.
@Bill1138.
Unfortunately when you rely on all or nothing special rules to do the job of the core rules should do.
Poor game balance and diffuse and confusing rules are pretty much a foregone conclusion.
@Breng77.
When the rules are well written you can grow the game and the players can grow with the game if they want to.
Poor rules like 40k just reset and regurgitate the same broken mess every few years.
So all that can be expanded in the minature range as the game play is restricted by the complete lack of actual game development.
Lanrak wrote: @Bill1138.
Unfortunately when you rely on all or nothing special rules to do the job of the core rules should do.
Poor game balance and diffuse and confusing rules are pretty much a foregone conclusion.
??? Where did I come across as implying an "all or nothing" approach to special rules? My preference has been a ground-up re-write of everything (core rules and Codexes) since I started this thread, with the majority of the special rules being in the core rulebook, and a smaller number of special rules existing for certain special snowflake units.
My preference has been a ground-up re-write of everything (core rules and Codexes) since I started this thread, with the majority of the special rules being in the core rulebook, and a smaller number of special rules existing for certain special snowflake units.
And special rules are a negative term because of GW's bad design.
Because in 40k there are only the weak and old fractions following the core rules while everything new overwrite 90% of those with special rules.
@Bill1138.
Apologies, I was referring to the way GW plc use all or nothing special rules!
I should have posted..
Unfortunately when you rely on all or nothing special rules to do the job of the core rules should do.Like GW does. Poor game balance and diffuse and confusing rules are pretty much a foregone conclusion.
@Kodos.
I do not think your 'better edited rules with well though out house rules added, ' class as a 'ground up re-write to fix the issues with the core rules'.
Even though they do address some the worst symptoms of GW complete lack of actual game development.
Your comprehensive and extensive intelligently applied set of house rules,is an improvement obviously, but does nothing to address the issues in the core rules .
WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods are not really suitable for a 40k battle game.
(As discussed at length in the Fixing 40k, general concepts and ideas thread.)
As a result any 40k rule set that is based on ancient warfare skirmish rules, is going to need lots of special rules to cover the bits that these inappropriate rules do not cover.Hence the massive over complication due to far too many special rules patching up the game play.
Lots of modern games use straight forward rules to deliver complex tactical, interaction.
I prefer this to the 'Yahtzee meets Top Trumps' rules writing /toy sales promotion style of GW plc.
I could well be in a minority, but GW plc sales volumes seem to tell a different story.
RE: my handicap idea. If I set something up (database) online would people want to help develop it? I estimate its about 2 hours work per codex if you are experienced in it.
But I only play SW and Eldar
I think the start would simply be to look at the Las Vegas Open lists and apply handicap to units and unit set ups that are common.
Then have a way to cut n paste a battlescribe list into the website.
WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods are not really suitable for a 40k battle game.
(As discussed at length in the Fixing 40k, general concepts and ideas thread.)
If you want to get completely away from the original GW design, there is just no reason to not change to Mantics Warpath.
The only reason to stay with GW and re-write the rules for 40k is because you like the "ancient warfare skirmish rules". If you do not, just directly get into Warpath (not that a re-write does not work, but spending a lot of time doing it while someone else already has done it, is not the best idea).
And there are a lot of people who like the ancient core of the rules
you don't need to get away from any GW design you just need a inverse points mechanic. I think I will just go away and make one, it's very easy to do and would cover everything perfectly
@Kodos.
Which original GW40k design are you referring to?
The RPG/skirmish hybrid WHFB in space game of Rogue trader?Or the Large Skirmish rules for WHFB in space of 2nd ed 40k?
GW plc have moved the game to a large battle game , similar game size to the 6mm Epic games!
But despite this massive shift in game size, scale and scope.
GW plc corporate management have refused to let the game devs change the core rules to suit the new battle game!
Mantics Warpath is a fine game as it follows its design brief.But is simply has not got enough detailed unit interaction ,to cover the wider variety of units found in the 40k game.
Rather than use 80+ special rules to get the character of 40k like GW does.
I think using more suitable core rules with much fewer resolution methods and special rules , would allow more tactically complex game play, and drastically cut the complication.
In all the polls I have seen on why people like 40k , LESS THAN 5% of people voted for the GW rules as the reason they liked playing 40k.
So I would say more people have issues with the rules for 40k than those who do not.
@Conanman.
Please do this , as I would really like to see how it works.
there will never be balance in this game. its impossible. you can get a "semblance" of balance but there are too many variables. if each army has to be special in its own way, then it can never be balanced. we have FAR too many armys and rules. this is an example of people who are competitive, have a hobby, and don't understand that it just isn't the kinda game where the better player always wins and everything can be fair.
for starters you have dice. yes you can say "well if i take 6 dice i will be assured to role the number i want cus math" and many times this is true untill its not and it horribly ruins you. whens the last time a tennis player made the correct decision where to place a shot 5 times but 2 of them just didn't work out because "the law of avgs"
then we have no standardized boards. this alone is a massive thing that no one seems to consider. as an avid sc2 player and competitive gamer in general I can assure you that maps DO matter. a very prominent sc2 player geoff "incontrol" robinson who plays tyranids and admech all over the big w40k tournys i'm sure would be happy to cannon rush you and then agree with me. honestly thats all the man ever did pvz and he should be ashamed but i digress....
also to the guy above me. how arbitrary is that 5 percent number. "in all the polls ive seen about what people liked about 40k". so what now you added all those polls up just now in your head and the results came back 5 percent. were all these polls the same exact questions or did we extrapolate this from the tone of the poll. cmon don't make things up
Lanrak wrote: Which original GW40k design are you referring to?
The core of the game that never changed.
(stuff like that you have a ranged value with flat to hit, a melee stat vs melee stat table, IGYG with phases etc). You can break down the original design on one page and than turn it into a 10 model skirmish, fantasy unit based or sci fi mass skirmish game)
Lanrak wrote: Mantics Warpath is a fine game as it follows its design brief.But is simply has not got enough detailed unit interaction ,to cover the wider variety of units found in the 40k game.
You looked into the latest Beta rules?
Warpath 3 allows more variety for units than 40k with all its special rules can. The may look not that different on paper but turn out to play more different than any two 40k armies do.
Lanrak wrote: In all the polls I have seen on why people like 40k , LESS THAN 5% of people voted for the GW rules as the reason they liked playing 40k.
Yeah, everyone want to have better rules
And still, if you come up with changes or alternative rules, everyone want to stay with the original rules because your suggestions are going to far and the game will not be 40k any more.
eosgreen wrote: there will never be balance in this game. its impossible. you can get a "semblance" of balance but there are too many variables. if each army has to be special in its own way, then it can never be balanced. we have FAR too many armys and rules
Compared to other games, in 40k is no difference between different fractions or armies. they are more or less all the same and what makes them feel different is the imbalance of their special rules.
For an example, Flames of War has much more different units, fractions, armies and rules than 40k (the 3 different possible lists of a single minor fraction play more different than all 40k armies together) and while it is not 100% balanced, compared to 40k it is light years ahead.
@eosgreen.
In all the polls I have seen across the forums.The people who voted for GWs rules as the reason they enjoyed playing 40k.
NEVER went above 5% in ANY of the polls at their end.
The Majority of the people voted for the background/art, or the minatures.etc.
I hope that makes my point it a bit clearer.
@Kodos.
But the core rules for 40k did change ,(for the worse).The removal of the Movement stat, and modifiers from the game left the core rules unable to cover enough of the game play.But rather than replace them with something better, they just put in multiple levels of complication and over eighty special rules!
The core rules now only cover standard infantry.(If that term can still be applied to 40k?)
I agree that the 40k relies heavily on special rules to show the differences between units.
The problem is if the core rules change too much they become too unfamiliar to the 40k players.If the do not change enough they are not worth moving too.
So the idea is to keep enough of the familiar aspects of 40k GAME PLAY.While significantly reducing complication in the rules , and ading more tactical depth.
All the other games I know of cover more variety of units with the core rules than GW40k rules do,even with 40k ridiculous amount of special rules! I am familiar with Mantics 3rd try at rules for Warpath, (Battle and skirmish rules.)
However, I am sure it would require more detailed unit interactions than this to do the wide variety of units found in 40k justice.
40k has NEVER had a rule set written specifically for it by GW. I Think a complete re-write from scratch is needed, and about 18 years overdue.
eosgreen wrote: there will never be balance in this game. its impossible. you can get a "semblance" of balance but there are too many variables. if each army has to be special in its own way, then it can never be balanced.
I would appreciate if comments were kept constructive. We're brainstorming ways to improve the game for everyone, not attempting cold fusion.
Now if we revisit the idea of doing away with the Wound/Hull Point dichotomy, how many unit types does the game need to encompass all of the various units?
@Bill1138.
From a game mechanics point of view 40k only has 2 types of unit.
Units that remove models to show wounds/damage, and those that record wounds/damage separately.
Everything else should be evident from the units stat line.
But the core rules for 40k did change ,(for the worse).The removal of the Movement stat, and modifiers from the game left the core rules unable to cover enough of the game play.But rather than replace them with something better, they just put in multiple levels of complication and over eighty special rules!
Thats a good example, and why I got back to the roots and brought Movement back to the unit profile.
While the basic idea at first was not that bad, it went bad the time GW added too much special movement rules to bring something similar back to game instead of going the easy why and add the movement stat again (but this would have been shown that removing it was the wrong decision, and GW never make one).
the same for the AP system instead of armour save modification. Not a bad idea at first, after spamming AP2 weapons was no problem, the whole system broke (and was "cured" by GW with an improved Cover Save, FnP, ridiculous ward save).
while other rules were an improvement but not really thought to its end (having fixed size was good, bad to have it capped at size 3 in a game were buildings were used which should have had size 5, or a size 3 vehicle on a size 3 hill was not treated as size 6, was just bad design)
I would appreciate if comments were kept constructive. We're brainstorming ways to improve the game for everyone, not attempting cold fusion.
Now if we revisit the idea of doing away with the Wound/Hull Point dichotomy, how many unit types does the game need to encompass all of the various units?
None
The whole unit type stuff is only there to solve the problem that 40k has no movement value in the unit profile
Add movement to the profile and unit types are obsolete
So vehicles can be treated the same like other models.
They have Tank Armour instead of Toughness and Armour Save, are wounded like everything else in the game and have Wounds instead of Hull Points (eg it would be better to call it always Health Points to avoid confusion).
To roll to wound against tanks would be same like before, Strength + D6 VS Armour, compared with the standard to wound table (S9, D6 shows 4, wound a vehicle with Armour 13 on 4+ and strips 1 Wound)
And a trick to solve the problem with the low strength, high rate of fire, weapons being better against tanks would be: Strength+7-AP = Strength value to wound against Tanks.
eg: S9 DS2 = 9+7-2 = 14 = 4+ to wound a Land Raider (Armour bane than can simply add an additional Strength value)
@Conanman.
Please do this , as I would really like to see how it works.
Ready started.. registered www.eldararmy.com today .. it'll be a discussion board (ember discourse) plus a place to register and update handicaps. . Basically I'll post more tomorrow when it's nearly done..
All it will be is a parallel points system that can be PLUS (these units are overused over powered) or NEGATIVE (these units can be underused or under powered) .. want to see 4 devastator marines with heavy bolters alongside 4 with grav? CHECK want to see WraithKnights and Storm guardians on foot? CHECK
@Kodos.
In the 'rushed 11th hour scramble' to release a 40k battle game,lots of errors of judgment were evident.*
(After the devs had spent 3 years working on a refined skirmish game, the GW sales department canned it and wanted a battle game with similar amounts of minatures to WHFB, just a few weeks before going to print!!!.)
So it is at the start of 3rd edition where we see the flaws in the core rules for the first time clearly.
I would like to replace the things 40k lost at this time with better alternatives , than the really out dated things from 2nd ed.
If you use alternating phases, there is no need for over watch and the stalemate it can produce.And the over complication of all the extra rules that go with reaction rules in general. This also allows more tactical interaction between players.
If we give models a Mobility value, of a letter to denote how it moves , as well as a distance in inches.We can get more detailed terrain interaction .(This may be more suited to the advanced rules perhaps?)
You posted..
'So vehicles can be treated the same like other models'.
Totally agree with this statement and idea!!!
Then posted..
'They have Tank Armour instead of Toughness and Armour Save, are wounded like everything else in the game and have Wounds instead of Hull Points (eg it would be better to call it always Health Points to avoid confusion). '
And then you go on to use separate system that is quite complicated..
My concept is to give ALL models/units a Armour Value from 1 to 10.
And ALL weapons a Armour Piercing Value from 1 to 10.
Read off the models AV down the left had side , and compare it to the attacking Waeapons Ap across the top.Where the values cross, this is the save the model gets.
1=Auto save unless special weapons abilities take effect.
7= save on a roll of 6 but discard half successful saves.(Same result as re rolling 4s.but without the extra rolling!)
n= no save possible.
d= deflected hit, no effect, not even weapon special abilities can improve the hit to effect the model.(EG rending etc.)
40k players are used to refering to a chart for the score needed to hit in close combat and to wound.
What is wrong with extending this resolution method to cover all combat resoluiton, and adding more results to get better proportionality?
BS vs Stealth(Size, speed silhuette.)
WS vs Agility. (Agility replaces initiative, which is redundant tin the new game turn.)
Av vs Ap.
Weapon Damage(S) Vs Target Resilience.(T)
Using a chart like this allows quite detailed and proportional results to be arrived at without lots of complicated modifiers or special rules!
You posted..
'So vehicles can be treated the same like other models'.
Totally agree with this statement and idea!!!
Then posted..
'They have Tank Armour instead of Toughness and Armour Save, are wounded like everything else in the game and have Wounds instead of Hull Points (eg it would be better to call it always Health Points to avoid confusion). '
Because 40k Player want it so.
Tank Armour = T+Armour Save, Strength against Tanks = STR+AP It comes to the same result as if Tanks would have Toughness and a Save, but players want to have something different for vehicles. While it would not be that big for Dreadnoughts they are not accepting a Rhino with T8 and 4+ save.
Lanrak wrote: @Kodos.
In the 'rushed 11th hour scramble' to release a 40k battle game,lots of errors of judgment were evident.*
(After the devs had spent 3 years working on a refined skirmish game, the GW sales department canned it and wanted a battle game with similar amounts of minatures to WHFB, just a few weeks before going to print!!!.)
So it is at the start of 3rd edition where we see the flaws in the core rules for the first time clearly.
And the promising could have been 3rd Edition was later known as Starship Troopers
Visit www.eldararmy.com .. today was 18 c outside.. too nice to do more watch the website though it'll be possible to register soon and do discussion and add values
@kudos not at all.. once the values are agreed you just place these community derived values into the XML used in battlescribe.. and it will inform any list what the handicap is.. the reason this fixes once and for all is that whatever comes out whatever points value GW give it the community handicap can be placed upon it to give it a real weight.
I hate to sound passé but this really does answer the OP.
Stage 1) set up a network where people decide /vote on handicap values
Stage 2) implement that into the XML battlescribe uses
Stage 3) ask battlescribe to support it (trivial)
the problem is still that there are a lot of rules were the community is devided how to use them.
how can your system handel stuff like one third plays the SW Dread with +1 attack and all time ward save, one third with +1 attack and save only in CC and one third with base attacks and save only in CC.
or the Tau hunter cadre and similar stuff
this system is good to get extrem lists balanced against weak/fluffy lists, but not solve the initial problem with broken/unclear rules. (it only affects the imbalanced point cost of units and formations)
@kodos if you are talking about rule interpretations that isn't something that this thread was actually asking - but in theory you could have 3 values for the SW dread. or at least declare the assumptions for each units rules - the same could be said about GC and how often it can shoot.
but that aside those are minor when compared to the fact that at tournaments literally the same list is rolled out repeatedly. having a handicap system that simply was based on tournament lists that people attempted to bring would tell you immediately what units need to be handicapped.
GW state they don't do tournaments .. so it's ok for a 3rd party to get behind the gap ... ITC do it with the rules but there is still the issue of "the same list all the time" which is boring and not really doing the game justice.
I want a way where two people can play whatever they like (Orks on foot vs decurion necrons) and even if they KNOW that the Orks are MINUS 900 handicap and the Necrons are PLUS 900 at least they KNOW,
I want a way to give players a REASON to take heavy bolters in devastators squads or terminators with storm bolters.
I want a way to secure older codexes for future value
ConanMan wrote: @kodos if you are talking about rule interpretations that isn't something that this thread was actually asking - but in theory you could have 3 values for the SW dread. or at least declare the assumptions for each units rules - the same could be said about GC and how often it can shoot.
but that aside those are minor when compared to the fact that at tournaments literally the same list is rolled out repeatedly.
IMHO those "minor" problems are the first to address. And interpretations are a topic because you never would get a balanced system if you don't have clear and consistent rules.
And if the only reason to take specific weapon/units is that you get the broken units into the list than this is the same like GW's decurion.
the good codex list will still take out everything no matter how many heavy bolter the must take.
(and for the game it makes no difference if the heavy bolter stand useless innthe shekf orvuseless on the table)
Without solving the problems of the core rules, codex rules cannot be balanced by a handycap/fluffpoint/etc system.
Lanrak wrote:@eosgreen.
In all the polls I have seen across the forums.The people who voted for GWs rules as the reason they enjoyed playing 40k.
NEVER went above 5% in ANY of the polls at their end.
The Majority of the people voted for the background/art, or the minatures.etc.
I hope that makes my point it a bit clearer.
k it didn't make your point less ore more clear because I am simply pointing out that you took polls that were not the same at all from various times and forums and then without seeing them in front of you added them all up to determine this number. all in your head off memory. i have seen maybe one of two polls where this type of topic was brought up and since no one makes these topics on painting forums, more people vote for the game so im more interested to have you list these polls and where you got them than anything else
Bill1138 wrote:
eosgreen wrote: there will never be balance in this game. its impossible. you can get a "semblance" of balance but there are too many variables. if each army has to be special in its own way, then it can never be balanced.
I would appreciate if comments were kept constructive. We're brainstorming ways to improve the game for everyone, not attempting cold fusion.
Now if we revisit the idea of doing away with the Wound/Hull Point dichotomy, how many unit types does the game need to encompass all of the various units?
i get that but this topic is brought up so often. its akin to a girl who doesn't like a guy but the guy won't accept it. the core of wh40k will never allow for the game to be balanced.
- non standard maps
- randomized missions
- incredibly diverse armys where some factions lack entire options all together from a DESIGN point. it would be fine if we simply had to add combat to x army and take away shooting from y army. we can't do that. to balance 40k you would have to make a new game, and then its not 40k is it
kodos wrote:
Lanrak wrote: Which original GW40k design are you referring to?
The core of the game that never changed.
(stuff like that you have a ranged value with flat to hit, a melee stat vs melee stat table, IGYG with phases etc). You can break down the original design on one page and than turn it into a 10 model skirmish, fantasy unit based or sci fi mass skirmish game)
Lanrak wrote: Mantics Warpath is a fine game as it follows its design brief.But is simply has not got enough detailed unit interaction ,to cover the wider variety of units found in the 40k game.
You looked into the latest Beta rules?
Warpath 3 allows more variety for units than 40k with all its special rules can. The may look not that different on paper but turn out to play more different than any two 40k armies do.
Lanrak wrote: In all the polls I have seen on why people like 40k , LESS THAN 5% of people voted for the GW rules as the reason they liked playing 40k.
Yeah, everyone want to have better rules
And still, if you come up with changes or alternative rules, everyone want to stay with the original rules because your suggestions are going to far and the game will not be 40k any more.
eosgreen wrote: there will never be balance in this game. its impossible. you can get a "semblance" of balance but there are too many variables. if each army has to be special in its own way, then it can never be balanced. we have FAR too many armys and rules
Compared to other games, in 40k is no difference between different fractions or armies. they are more or less all the same and what makes them feel different is the imbalance of their special rules.
For an example, Flames of War has much more different units, fractions, armies and rules than 40k (the 3 different possible lists of a single minor fraction play more different than all 40k armies together) and while it is not 100% balanced, compared to 40k it is light years ahead.
light years ahead is what exactly? these types of games CAN NEVER have real balance.
@Kodos.
''IMHO those "minor" problems are the first to address. And interpretations are a topic because you never would get a balanced system if you don't have clear and consistent rules.
And if the only reason to take specific weapon/units is that you get the broken units into the list than this is the same like GW's decurion.
the good codex list will still take out everything no matter how many heavy bolter the must take.
(and for the game it makes no difference if the heavy bolter stand useless innthe shekf orvuseless on the table)
Without solving the problems of the core rules, codex rules cannot be balanced by a handycap/fluffpoint/etc system.''
I totally and completely agree with this statement.
Its just I believe clear and consistent rules means writing rules for the units currently in the game.(Rather than modifying WHFB based 2nd ed in some way.)
If the resolution process is the same across all units, and the results are proportional . than the game balance will be as easy to achieve as it is with other well defined war games.
@eosgreen.
Fair point.
How about.
Of the people who showed an interest in posting what was the main reason they played 40k .The overwhelming majority stated was NOT the rules GW plc make them pay for.
And the majority of people seem to have stated the poor rules writing and cost of products, the main reason they do not buy into, no longer play 40k.
Therefore I would assume a better written rules set should be a priority.
No one expects perfect balance, as this is impossible.
Some games get close to perfect imbalance though.(Slight and organic growth of strategic and tactical play between the players as they find MINOR advantages and MINOR counters .)
All the war games I have played with the exception of 40k/WHFB, have much better level of balance, in the fact players tend to have to play the game extensively to find if there are any issues with balance!
40k is so imbalanced it spoils the enjoyment of all but the most determined players, or those with a very low expectation of the rules GW plc sell them.
As soon as a new codex is out the internet is buzzing with what units are considered under powered/over powered, under or over costed.(Power is the suitability of units in the game rather than cost issues.)
And the interpretation of poorly worded rules is another source of aggravation that could EASILY be avoided.
Note the inability of some forces to deal with other forces in 40k is due to the complete lack of tactical options found in better developed war games.
If you change the rules the game play can still be 40k.
In the same way Epic had 4 completely different rule sets written for it .But it still was Epic game play.
Many people have played 40k skirmish games with lots of other war game conversions.As long as the factions interact how the players expect the game they play is as 40k , as RT or 2nd ed is 40k.
- the #1 problem imo is that rules of codex/game trump the map. this causes tactical problems which would make up for codex strength. when a certain tactic on a map is far stronger than the fact that you have an army thats stronger than me in straight up dice roll strength, it at the very least lessens the problem
maps need to be the #1 factor in every game. instead of saying "well how can i kill x unt with this army" or "but i'll struggle to kill this unit" people should be saying "how can I win with this map. the problem is that the codexes, lal of them, would need rewrites
- can you imagine a warp spider spam list struggling on a map? it kinda functions the same always as does a daemon summoning list and a gladius strike force. they all kinda functon the same no matter what. its why they are strong but thats a problem. taking strong formations/lists is the #1 way to do well which means its list vs list. thats dice and stats, not tactics and will certainly yield very similar armys
@eosgreen.
If you are saying the sales drive that is the GW codex releases, should be replaced with something more focused on delivering a tactically complex and diverse problem solving, with a wide array of playable forces, then I agree.
The the core rules are no longer suitable for the game play 40k has evolved into.
GW plc corporate management and sales department have refused to let the game devs re-write the rules to suit the new game play.
So now the sales department have focused the studio on maximizing the returns on new releases.
This means Codex special snowflake special rules, and scenarios/maps to show off how awesome the latest releases are supposed to be.
If a rule set was written specifically for the current game play of 40k, eg sort of Epic with more detailed unit interaction .(NOT an Epic conversion due to conflict of scale.)
Then as there would be more tactical options in game, more units could perform useful in game functions,and allow more varied and playable selections from a particular faction.
Currently 40k has complicated rules and very simple /restricted game play.
To let it be as good as other war games, we need to achieve complex game play with straightforward rules.
This needs a complete ground up re-write for 40kIMO.
How does everyone feel about the Stat line? It was suggested that unit types be removed and the stat line expanded, so what attributes should it include?
Perhaps something like:
Weapon Skill: an opposed chart between the attacker's WS and the defender's WS.
Ballistic Skill: an opposed chart between the attacker's BS and the defender's Evasion.
Evasion: see Ballistic Skill. Evasion incorporates the units size, speed, and camouflage into one value of how hard it is to hit.
Strength: an opposed table against Toughness.
Toughness: See Strength. Toughness is the sheer durability of a unit, be it organic or mechanical.
Hit Points: This is the amount of health a unit has, be it organic or mechanical.
Attacks: This is how many dice the unit gets when making melee attacks before any modifiers.
Initiative: This determines the order of attack.
Speed: Denoted by a number (showing how far in inches the unit can move), and a letter (showing what type of movement it is).
Discipline: How prone a unit is to yielding to fear or running away.
Perhaps maybe a stat for how close the models have to be to each other to be in "unit coherency" where most units have something like 2" while stealth units such as Snipers may have 3-4", and Vehicles may have 6" or more?
The stat line I use
Movement, BS, WS, STR, T, ATT, Leadership, Healthpoints, Size, Trait.
BS is flat, but evasion is available as Trait for special units
WS vs WS and STR vs T, but with a +2 cap (-3 is auto hit or wound, +3 is not possible) for both.
Perhaps maybe a stat for how close the models have to be to each other to be in "unit coherency" where most units have something like 2" while stealth units such as Snipers may have 3-4", and Vehicles may have 6" or more?
therefore I use "size".
It gives the range for close combat, model size for cover determination, range for unit formation and indicates the base size.
I think most people can see room for improvement in the stat line used by 40k.
The most obvious is the lack of a stat for mobility,movement, speed , what ever we decide to call it.
It is an important part of how effective a unit is on the battle field and should be on the stat line , if there is a wide variety of values as their are in 40k.
I am a fan of using opposed values from 1 to 10 in a universal resolution chart, to remove the pointless complication of several separate resolution methods.
I would rather have a dedicated stat for how hard the unit is to hit at range.Opposed to the attackers BS.(Evasion / Stealth or what ever we call it.)
As it removes the need to use special rules/lots of modifiers to do the same job.
As the opposed stats can give us a proportional and intuitive way to determine the chance to hit as part of the basic resolution.
40k players are used to looking up the score needed to wound on a chart , so it is not a new resolution method.
If we are using a more interactive game turn, then the Initiative stat, is sort of redundant.I would prefer to change this stat to an opposed stat to WS.
WS is how good the unit is hitting things in close combat.
The new 'Agility' stat can represent how good the unit is a not being hit in close combat.(We can use the Initiative values as a base line for the new Agility stat.)
For example an Ork Slugga Boy is just as good at hitting things in close combat as an Eldar Banshee.(WS 4)
But the Orks Agility of 2, means it is much more likely to be hit in close combat than the Eldar Banshee with its Agility of 5.
This gives a similar function as the initiative stat, but allows close combat and shooting to be resolved in the same way.
Imagine the Orks boy lumbers towards the Eldar swinging wildly, the Eldar elegantly side steps the Orks clumsy swings, and deftly despatches the Ork with a graceful and deadly acrobatic movement.
The current Initiative value just gives you the likely end result that the Ork will not land the first blow.IMO.
I would like to give all units a Armour value from 1 to 10.
And all weapons an AP value from 1 to 10.
And use these values to determine the save a model gets depending on the AP of the weapon hit.
This means to hit and to save uses the same resolution method.
How do you feel about using the terms Damage and Resilience , instead of strength and toughness as these are more generic?
Units have a resilience value of 1 to 10.
Weapons have damage value of 1 to 10.
These values are opposed in the universal resolution table to see the score needed to inflict hit points loss on the enemy.
Now we have to hit ,(in close combat and at range), to save, and to damage .All using the same resolution method that gives intuitive proportional results .
I know this adds 2 new stats to the stat line.BUT if we give each units its own weapons data .(Close combat and ranged weapons.)
(Similar to F,O,W .)
Then the models Attacks ,and Strength can be shown on the units close combat weapons profile.
This has the added advantage of letting all units have the same stat line.
Discipline or Morale can be used to show how willing the unit is to fight on .
Command can be a separate value,to show how good the units leader.attached character is at controlling the unit.
EG Command 6"/1 means the unit leader has a coherency of 6" and can add 1 to ONE dice roll per game turn. (The unit has to remain withing a 6" diameter circle.Sort of an imaginary base the models have to stay on.)
This alternative coherency allows much quicker movement and freedom of movement .
As higher Command values of characters can allow the unit to spread out more and remain effective.
Sorry about the long post.I will be happy to explain things in a bit more detail if needed.
YOU HAVE ONLY YOURSELVES TO BLAME THAT 40K IS UNBALANCED!
Why?
Because when they put out OP, unbalanced units, people rush out to buy the new, expensive shiny.
And then other people rush out to buy the units which counter those OP, unbalanced units.
And GW makes money off of it.
Why should GW balance the game? 40k players are dumb enough to keep buying into the imbalance.
You want 40k to be balanced? Then start saying NO to GW with your wallets.
Don't buy those wraithknights. Don't buy that Tau codex. Don't buy that stormsurge. Don't buy those Riptides. Don't buy those windrider bikes with scatterlasers. Don't buy those fliers. Don't buy those grav centurions.
Eventually, GW will either take the hint, or else, go out of business.
YOU HAVE ONLY YOURSELVES TO BLAME THAT 40K IS UNBALANCED!
Why?
Because when they put out OP, unbalanced units, people rush out to buy the new, expensive shiny.
And then other people rush out to buy the units which counter those OP, unbalanced units.
And GW makes money off of it.
Why should GW balance the game? 40k players are dumb enough to keep buying into the imbalance.
You want 40k to be balanced? Then start saying NO to GW with your wallets.
Don't buy those wraithknights. Don't buy that Tau codex. Don't buy that stormsurge. Don't buy those Riptides. Don't buy those windrider bikes with scatterlasers. Don't buy those fliers. Don't buy those grav centurions.
Eventually, GW will either take the hint, or else, go out of business.
I'm already not buying anything from GW. In fact, I'm currently not even playing the game, because my primary army was Grey Knights, and everyone knows how much they were ground underfoot with their last Codex update. And my second army (Imperial Guard) isn't much better. I initiated a thread for gamers to colaborate to try to build their own set of alternate rules so that we can use the models we already have in spite of the rules GW makes.
You showing up and pointing fingers at us doesn't help anything. Please keep comments constructive.
Bill wrote:I'm already not buying anything from GW. In fact, I'm currently not even playing the game, because my primary army was Grey Knights, and everyone knows how much they were ground underfoot with their last Codex update. And my second army (Imperial Guard) isn't much better. I initiated a thread for gamers to colaborate to try to build their own set of alternate rules so that we can use the models we already have in spite of the rules GW makes.
You showing up and pointing fingers at us doesn't help anything. Please keep comments constructive.
What I said was perfectly constructive. Yes, you aren't buying anything from GW. But tons of other people are.
Just read the comments in the tactics section, the general discussion section, etc.
Fact is, for everyone who doesn't approve of the codex power creep, there's somebody else who is going to jump on the "new shiny" bandwagon.
Until pretty much the entire customer base says "NO" with their wallets, GW has little incentive to balance the game.
I think it is pretty obvious that GW corporate management have convinced them selves that 40k/AOS rules are just a short term sales promotion tool.
And so any actual meaningful game development to correct all the issues with the current 40k rules would be from the gaming community.
As enough of the remaining collectors are happy enough to pay for the with new shiny models , to keep the GW plc from going bankrupt any time soon.
If GW were going to notice players dropping 40k in droves, they would have noticed it by now!(GW plc have lost nearly 2/3rds of the sales volumes they had over 12 years ago!)
So folks it is pretty much up to us to write the rules set specifically for the 40k battle game using 28mm minatures!
Therefore , I think It would be appreciated if people kept comments/questions to the ideas expressed in this thread about game balance and game development.
Lanrak wrote: I think it is pretty obvious that GW corporate management have convinced them selves that 40k/AOS rules are just a short term sales promotion tool.
Because it works.
Yes, sales may be down overall, but the simple fact remains that the people who are buying do in fact buy the new OP shinies.
It's pretty much characteristic, so far as I can tell, of the competitive part of the 40k community.
So long as GW keeps churning out unbalanced, OP new shinies, people like my opponents in this thread will just keep on buying.
Is it a short term sales promotion gimmick? You betcha.
Does it work?
Unfortunately, it does.
That's why GW keeps doing it.
If there's going to be change, it has to come from all 40k players, including the competitive players, who are still in the hobby collectively saying NO to GW's new shinies.
But of course, that won't happen, because that contingent of the playerbase are WAACTFGs with more money than sense.
They're like the people who pay more for the pre-release of a shooting game just so that they can get the super powerful guns unlocked while everyone is running around with standard newb gear.
Blacksails wrote: God forbid someone buy something for reasons other than how powerful it is on the table top.
Sorry, but GW doesn't require you to fill out a survey when you buy a product. You don't have to say why you bought a product.
All that they know is:
1. They gave this model OP rules.
2. This model is selling.
If you want game balance, do not buy OP models, regardless of your motivations for so doing. I don't care if you want to display the stormsurge on your shelf and have no intention of running it. If you purchase it, the vote you are casting, in the eyes of GW, is: "MAKE MORE OP SHINIES!"
If you buy it anyway, then you can't complain about game imbalance. You voted for it with your wallet.
Equally they don't know why you AREN'T buying it. You could not buy a Wraithknight because it's cheese or it could be because you think it's ugly. Your point is doesn't make sense.
pm713 wrote: Equally they don't know why you AREN'T buying it. You could not buy a Wraithknight because it's cheese or it could be because you think it's ugly.
This is a perfectly fair point, and it's not in conflict with what I am saying.
Ultimately, you only can cast one of two votes:
1: "I WANT THAT NEW SHINY!"
2: "I DON'T WANT THAT NEW SHINY!"
If you cast your vote in favor of the former, then you have nobody but yourself to blame for the game imbalances.
If you cast your vote in favor of the latter, then it's perfectly true that GW doesn't know why you cast that vote. Nonetheless, if enough people cast that vote, it would force GW to take a step back and ask why people don't want the new shinies.
Currently, they don't even have to do that. Why? Because people buy the new shinies. Are sales down overall? Sure. But people are buying the new shinies.
And note, this is not in the least a call for a boycott against GW. By all means, if you have a group of people who agree not to buy the new shinies, then buy Khorne Berserkers, tactical marines, and all of the "oldies but goodies."
You're still ignoring that one of the reasons for buying something could be because it looks fly as feth and buying it might send a message to GW saying "make more fly as feth models like this".
Blacksails wrote: You're still ignoring that one of the reasons for buying something could be because it looks fly as feth and buying it might send a message to GW saying "make more fly as feth models like this".
Again, GW doesn't know your motivations. There are two and only two votes that you can cast:
1: "I WANT THE NEW SHINY!"
2: "I DON'T WANT THE NEW SHINY!"
Regardless of your actual intents and purposes, a vote for 1 is, practically speaking, a vote for game imbalance.
It's like voting Republican. Even if you are voting Republican for the economic issues, you are still voting for the guy who has such and such opinions about global warming, whether or not you agree with those opinions. By casting your vote, you are, practically speaking, voting for the guy who will block efforts to prevent the burning of fossil fuels.
What basic abilities used in basic combat should be on the stat line for 40k but are not?
Eg the things that are so varied between units, if we do not include a stat for them we will need to use special rules.
My list is ...
Movement
To hit at range .
To avoid being hit at range.(Size, silhouette, ability to reduce profile, kneel lay down etc.)
To hit in close combat
To avoid being hit in close combat.(The ability to dodge /parry etc.Replaces Initiative stat)
Armour value.(How much protection the unit has.)
Resilience.(How hard it is to damage the unit with a penetrating hit that beat the armour.)
Hit points, (Wounds/structure.)
Morale,(how willing the unit is to fight on.)
Command.(How well lead the unit is, determining unit coherency, etc.)
We could move the Strenght(damage) and Attacks values from the stat line and put them in the units weapon data.
Wg the units weapons are listed under the stst line , with the net effect of the user/weapon.This means we do nopt have to remember the stst lines for all the weapons and what effects they have on user S.
Weapons profile.(fr close combat and ranged weapons in the unit.)
Name, Range, Attacks.AP.Damage.Notes
This is mainly a change in how information is presented.(For clarity. )
broken! You could fix it by letting you summon models that have been removed as a casualty, thereby preventing people from summoning like 500 points of free stuff.
) were very noticeably underpowered. Otherwise, the power levels were mostly pretty even.
)
)
watch the website though it'll be possible to register soon and do discussion and add values
