Recent discussion in a lot of forums seems like a vast majority of people are pretty sick of "soup" lists that seem to be everywhere. Even "pure" lists are soup in a way, for example, Chaos running Alpha Legion + one other legion to get the best rules on the best units, or Innari running multiple units from various Eldar sects in a "single" army. It also seems that people are pretty peeved that many lists revolve around spamming a few units to win, such as the PBC list that seems popular, Obliterator spam, etc.
I get it, its a game, and people can play how they want. I don't disagree.
However, I will say, in my own personal opinion, it makes the game extremely un-interesting; many of the "competitive" battle reports are pretty stale, unless its one guy testing new models or a unique strategy. Even many of the top LVO lists were based around bending or breaking the rules in some way.
I hear a lot of proposed fixes, and a lot of them are pretty great. In my opinion though... why not bring back the old FOC model?
For those of you who haven't been around for a while, the FOC model was thus:
You could have a Max of two HQ's, Three Elites, Three Fast Attack, Six Troops, and Three Heavy Support in your army.
The caveat to this model was that some armies would bend these rules to fit their playstyle. So, for example, some armies could have multiple HQ's in a single slot (like IG), some armies could make elite's into troops (Deathwing Terminators), etc.
While there were obvious problems with this system still, it worked. Each slot had its "optimal" models, but it took a lot more thinking and strategy to make your army work when working within limitations. You could even go so far as to have an "auxiliary FOC" for detachment armies, so for example your Ultramarines would use a normal FOC, but you can take one aux FOC for a small IG contingent.
I guess I'm just sentimental; I really liked the old FOC model, and I still build my armies more or less in the same manner. What are some of your thoughts? Do you like detachments, or do you feel there is a better way to do it?
While it might be nice to go back to the chart I think that there would have to be some changes to reflect models that were not available during 3rd (like flyers).
Off the top of my head I think that it should look something generally like this:
3 HQ, 6 Troops, 3 each Elites, Fast, Heavy and, Flyers, 1 Fort, 1 LoW.
Of course you would be limited to one codex as well.
Honestly you could boil down use the Old FOC to limit everyone to use the Battalion Detachment. Requires 2 HQs and 3 Troops but it’s essentially the same. And if you want to take an allied force they have to be in a Patrol Detachment.
Honestly matched play is always going to have wonky lists. If you want mono-army lists instead of soup I propose running friendlies or narrative tourneys.
The old FoC was boring as hell. I spent many years wishing GW would ditch it or at the very least add some more different ones and that is what they have done. I don't see how having more variety in detachment types makes the game stale. In fact for me it makes games far more interesting. It's the same old units every time that makes an opponent's game/army stale if it even does such a thing. I am most definitely in favour of the various detachments. I'd probably try and come up with a couple more if I was GW.
I certainly wouldn't complain if the game went back to the 5th FOC. Throw in a stricter allied system without shared bonuses for people with fluffy, mixed armies, and ensure that all codices have appropriate FOC swaps for different troops (marine captains on bikes grant bike troops, so on).
I think the post 5th edition army building paradigm has created more problems than it solved, but the cat's out of the bag. Then again, I also wouldn't complain if flyers and superheavies were removed from standard games of 40k.
The simplest reason is that it would require a massive rewrite of the codexes that have already been released and it would also mean a decent faction restructuring.
When I talk about faction restructuring I am talking about all those mini-factions that need to be reabsorbed into a larger codex. Ynnari, Harlequins would be absorbed into Craftworlds, Inquisition would be absorbed into AM, and so on and so on.
The beauty of soup currently is that GW can now allow themselves to release smaller factions that can be souped into existing factions. Win-win for GW really, as well as us.
There is no need to bring back the FOC, it is very much still here, it is just called a battalion detachment now. And you can definitely limit games to two batallions or a single brigade if you want to. I don't see how it solves anything gamerelated, though.
The simplest reason is that it would require a massive rewrite of the codexes that have already been released and it would also mean a decent faction restructuring.
I really don't think it would require any rewriting. It would be a simple thing to restrict people to, say, a batallion and patrol detachment, or just a single brigade. I don't see how the game would be much improved, though. Regards
I wouldn't complain if they went back to the old FOC, but at this point, souping is predestined.
After all, just look at how many keywords units have in the Imperial Guard codex:
Ministorum Priests have "Adeptus Ministorum" and "Astra Militarum" in both lists.
Techpriest Enginseers have "Adeptus Mechanicus" and "Astra Militarum" in the AM list, but "Adeptus Mechanicus" and "Cult Mechanicus" in mechanicus lists.
Crusaders are the same as Ministorum Priests.
If you say "take mono-faction", are Imperial Guard prevented from taking Tech-Priests? And if not, then why arbitrarily allow Vanguard detachments of Guard tech-priests but ban a guard player from taking Supreme Command detachments of Mechanicus techpriests?
And where do Inquisitors go? Or do you make some allowance for soup, but ban it from other iterations for some reason?
I just don't get the hate for soup. Competitive play is wonky, to be sure, but would be even if lists were forced to be "mono" anyways. Soup is way fluffy, and that's why I support it - I enjoy the fluff.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I don't think that anyone is under the impression that GW will act on this suggestion. I think it's more blowing off steam at soup armies.
IRL I'd like to see events limit armies to 2 detachments with the second detachment being limited to a patrol or supreme command detachment.
Right, but what people consider "soup" now wasn't soup in, say, 4th edition.
E.G. my 4th edition armoured company lists had 3 enginseers in it to fix the tanks. I could do that in this edition with a Vanguard Detachment (forcing me to buy an IGHQ for no reason) or I could do it with a Mechanicus Supreme Command detachment - at which point its suddenly soup, despite still being 3 enginseers with some tanks like it's always been for edition after edition.
Similarly, a buddy of mine who has always run Ministorum Priests with his guard can either run them in a Ministorum Vanguard with Uriah Jocobus as HQ, or run them as elites choices in some other Astra Militarum detachment. One is soup, the other is not.
The Imperium has always cooperated in its ranks since at least 1st Edition. I'm just surprised people are so triggered by it now.
I think the new detachments are a fine addition, it’s just that Command Points and Strategms have got out of control and certain units haven’t been well-tested for how they operate in allied armies.
pismakron wrote: I really don't think it would require any rewriting. It would be a simple thing to restrict people to, say, a batallion and patrol detachment, or just a single brigade. I don't see how the game would be much improved, though. Regards
Again, nothing is stopping you restricting yourself to these.
I like the multi-detachment lists. I don't remember chaos player complaining back in 3rd and 4th ed when they could have marines, demons, and traitor guard all in the same list.
It's fluffy for most armies to be able to take like wise aligned allies. The only downside is some armies don't have allies. Orcs, Tau, and Necrons are stuck solo.
BlackLobster wrote: The old FoC was boring as hell. I spent many years wishing GW would ditch it or at the very least add some more different ones and that is what they have done. I don't see how having more variety in detachment types makes the game stale. In fact for me it makes games far more interesting. It's the same old units every time that makes an opponent's game/army stale if it even does such a thing. I am most definitely in favour of the various detachments. I'd probably try and come up with a couple more if I was GW.
Stormonu wrote: I think the new detachments are a fine addition, it’s just that Command Points and Strategms have got out of control and certain units haven’t been well-tested for how they operate in allied armies.
Honestly, a way to fix the issue of Command Points and Stratagems would be to have more elite armies/unit choices take up multiple FOC slots. It cuts down on soup a bit more while at the same time allowing for those armies when fielded as 'pure' choices to catch up with the lesser armies for CP/Stratagem usage.
With regards to 'certain units', I wonder how much of that might have to do with weird combinations popping up that might not have been expected or just in general how people still seem to play wildly different to how GW themselves do.
Yeah...FOC was one of the many things holding me back from playing previous editions - especially since so many torunaments kept feeling like each FOC needed to be tweaked/banned/modified in order to make tourney play fair.
I get that older players have this whole 'who moved my cheese' thing about lists that share a major faction but consist of several sub-factions, but GW has been moving in this direction for a while. Newer players like myself have happily bought into it just for the fluff reasons alone and banning us isn't going to fix a lot of the problems that people blame detachments for.
Ynarri can be just as posted in a solo-keyword build as they are in the multi-keyword build. Same for AM, Space Marines, Chaos, etc. If there is an interaction problem between two subfactions than the offending model needs errata, not the entire game's core rules. It's like saying that Index AM Artillery was too good so they should have just banned artillery form the game.
As much as players will min and max and take advantage of faction abuse......
GW kinda went out of its way to make it so that we can play with any and all models we have ever bought. We can play them in any army (I hate flyers and low in non apoc games)
This way everyone is happy to play how they want.
Now in tournaments or matched play I would like to see a -1 CP if your detachment or army make up has for each non core units.
Eldar and Dark Eldar should not work as cleanly together as an all dark elder raider force. So a mixed detachment or each add on one is a -1 cp
So those marines brought in some basilisks. Surely those slow moving gunners don't have the same tactics or flexible battle training to work perfectly in sync like Marines.
Legal yes...but it will cost you a CP.
Ynarri that everyone complains about. Well....not too many CPs if you draw from multiple factions/craftworlds
Ulthwe and Beil-Tan.....yes they ally. Rarely they see eye to eye on how to fight.....so there again a penalty in CPs will lower their synergy.
Seems like the easiest fix to s a lot of the complaints lately.
Primark G wrote: Maybe when all of the codices have been released GW will ban soup lists. I don’t like them much either.
That would be adding limitations thus reducing buyer base. Expect more of widening so that ork and necron players have reason to buy ig or tyranid models rather than otherway around
Dude... people abused the hell out of the game back then and continue to do so... nostalgia won't fix your game! What will fix it is changing the people! If we encourage more fluffy fun play styles rather than "buuur! I WANNA WIN! The only thing that makes me happy is abusing game rules so I can use plastic figures to win at something! ". I say 40k needs to become more like DnD where a focus is on campaigns and narrative. A loss then isn't always a loss but just a change in an overall narrative. It also means that people might want to fucs more on a custom force that suits them rather than what suits the meta (also if a jerk brings an OPbs list them the gm can just knock him out of the water).
The problem with soup lists gameplay-wise is really is just the ability to share army-specific benefits. GW was initially heading back down the slippery slope to 7th (everyone can use their allies' strategems/auras/psychic powers!) but seems to have reigned it back a bit. There is an inherent unfairness to xenos as well when imperium lists can patch holes in their army with another army, but if each army has enough valid options to stand alone then it will be less of a problem.
pismakron wrote: I really don't think it would require any rewriting. It would be a simple thing to restrict people to, say, a batallion and patrol detachment, or just a single brigade. I don't see how the game would be much improved, though. Regards
Again, nothing is stopping you restricting yourself to these.
I agree. The FOC does not need to come back, it is already in the game. And people can opt to play soup-restricted mono-detachment games without any changes to the rules.
supreme overlord wrote: Keep soup! Allow my inquisition army to be as fluffy and soupy as they're supposed to be!
This. My Ordo Hereticus army loves the soup. I really enjoy mixing in an extra 500pts of another faction just for a bit of a change up. The FOC can go jump off a cliff
The current detachments are fine, you just shouldn't get a Chapter (Craftworld, Regiment, Hive World, etc.) trait unless all models in the army (instead of the detachment) have that Chapter keyword.
That way there's an actual decision to be made about whether its worth losing your specialization bonus for the flexibility to take units from outside that specialization.
I love the current detachment system. You can start collecting armies and you get to play with them without having to break your bank (and sanity) by purchasing a 2000 point army right off the bat. Sure some armies lack this option and there are some balance implications sure, but for collectors and for GW it's a pretty nice deal.
greyknight12 wrote: The problem with soup lists gameplay-wise is really is just the ability to share army-specific benefits. GW was initially heading back down the slippery slope to 7th (everyone can use their allies' strategems/auras/psychic powers!) but seems to have reigned it back a bit. There is an inherent unfairness to xenos as well when imperium lists can patch holes in their army with another army, but if each army has enough valid options to stand alone then it will be less of a problem.
Of course they reined it only for chaos daemons. For others it's still strategems etc works cross book.
I started playing 40k in the heady days of 3rd edition, when FoC was gospel, left for a decade, and came back towards the end of 7th, when formations ruled, and now, of course, we have detachments. And while I don't like everything about 8th (I don't know why the game has overwatch, for example), I can honestly say that I think detachments are a stroke of genius, and the best thing about the game at the moment. They allow for 1000x more army building flexibility than the stringent FoC, while avoiding all of those excesses that came from formations.
supreme overlord wrote: Keep soup! Allow my inquisition army to be as fluffy and soupy as they're supposed to be!
This. My Ordo Hereticus army loves the soup. I really enjoy mixing in an extra 500pts of another faction just for a bit of a change up. The FOC can go jump off a cliff
I played against an army that had all of the following factions:
greyknight12 wrote: The problem with soup lists gameplay-wise is really is just the ability to share army-specific benefits. GW was initially heading back down the slippery slope to 7th (everyone can use their allies' strategems/auras/psychic powers!) but seems to have reigned it back a bit. There is an inherent unfairness to xenos as well when imperium lists can patch holes in their army with another army, but if each army has enough valid options to stand alone then it will be less of a problem.
Of course they reined it only for chaos daemons. For others it's still strategems etc works cross book.
Yes. But the keyword situation with daemons was also particularly inelegant mess, with Daemon being both a keyword and a faction keyword.
supreme overlord wrote: Keep soup! Allow my inquisition army to be as fluffy and soupy as they're supposed to be!
This. My Ordo Hereticus army loves the soup. I really enjoy mixing in an extra 500pts of another faction just for a bit of a change up. The FOC can go jump off a cliff
I played against an army that had all of the following factions:
The current iteration is great and allows for armies to be used in their best state. Take for example Custodes and Grey Knights. Both are FAR better when used as a detachment to another force than a strict solo army. Then you have armies like Ynnari that are DESIGNED to use other codexes. Multiple armies coming together to fight as a cohesive unit is still even fluffy. I don't get the hate other than people mad that their solo armies get beat by armies with multiple detachments. The issue isn't detachments, the issue is that some units are better for their price than others and you can add them into an existing army as a separate detachment. That's a unit balance problem more than anything.
supreme overlord wrote: Keep soup! Allow my inquisition army to be as fluffy and soupy as they're supposed to be!
This. My Ordo Hereticus army loves the soup. I really enjoy mixing in an extra 500pts of another faction just for a bit of a change up. The FOC can go jump off a cliff
I played against an army that had all of the following factions:
IG SoB GK BT IF
That is pretty crazy if you ask me.
Why is that crazy? Most of those factions are barely factions in the first place and have more or less been dropped by GW. They're largely non-optimal and lack the versatility to support 2000 points of worthwhile models and I'd be really, really surprised if they were topping the podium at any large event. They're even largely fluff coherent.
So what's the issue other than it doesn't fit into your definition of what a "faction" is?
Mmmpi wrote: I like the multi-detachment lists. I don't remember chaos player complaining back in 3rd and 4th ed when they could have marines, demons, and traitor guard all in the same list.
You don't remember because you couldn't. Allies did not exist then (barring =][= ones for Imperium armies and Kroot mercs to an extent). CSM and Daemons were in one codex and Traitor Guard didn't exist until later into 4th ed. Closest you could get was LATD which had limited selections of available CSM and Daemon units.
I like the new detachment system, it's much better than the formations of 7th.
I just want the codices to have their own detachment system printed in them. The ones I've leafed through seem to leave you unable to actually write a list unless you have the BrB and the detachments contained therein.
WAAC-players will always find a way to abuse (and break) the system. They do now with souplists and they did back with the old FOC after GW introduced allies.
The issue is the players, not the current detatchment-system.
Edit: Altough the formations of 7th really pushed me out of the hobby. I pray that gak never come back.
I can definitely see some points for (and against) FOC returning.
I don't dislike the Detachment system, per se, but it is definitely way more open to abuse. Soup armies, spamming a billion of a single "herp de derp!" model in the traditional WACC playstyle...
Again, I get this is a game, but how happy are you with playing against a "Death Guard" army thats 800 points DG, 700 points demons, and 500 points chaos because they want to pick and choose the "best" units from several codices, and use the strategems together?
Many Ordos players like this, and I get it; ordos usually is a few models, not a full-on army.
I guess where I'm going is its pretty asinine to say the game is healthy when people can grab one or two models from a few factions to patch holes in their main faction. Yes, I like that I can pick up, buy, and play basically anything in my army that can align with it. But shouldn't there be SOME restriction? Even if GW does nothing, should we (the gamers) do something to combat this?
Many games balance themselves, or shift the balance, through patches and expansions. However, very few games give you the pure breadth of choice we get with 40k... I'd just like to see more choice and varied armies. I do like that GW is patching and fixing stuff on the fly, adjusting points, and adding (or subtracting) things from units that are detrimental. I just think soup lists shouldn't be essentially the only thing people should be able to play and win in competition.
Yeah, FOC won't fix it, I guess it was rose tinted thinking
Mmmpi wrote: I like the multi-detachment lists. I don't remember chaos player complaining back in 3rd and 4th ed when they could have marines, demons, and traitor guard all in the same list.
You don't remember because you couldn't. Allies did not exist then (barring =][= ones for Imperium armies and Kroot mercs to an extent). CSM and Daemons were in one codex and Traitor Guard didn't exist until later into 4th ed. Closest you could get was LATD which had limited selections of available CSM and Daemon units.
"CSM and Daemons and Traitor Guard didn't exist" right before "Closest you could get was LATD (Lost and the Damned, traitor guard ) with Daemon and Chaos units..."
So yes, you could mix daemons, chaos, and traitor guard...
I'd rather see additional CP given to armies that are monobuild. Then, would you rather pick and choose the best units from multiple armies and soup them or get the additional CP for stratagems, rerolls, etc.?
By the God Emperor, the new detachment system is so much better.
I mean, the only real argument for the old FoC would be that you don't need as many HQ's and troops to make up your army, but from what I've seen most armies want to be fielding their troops choices for their own sake and not as a tax anyway.
It's not like the old 2/6/3/3/3 organization chart ever made me bring Celestians or Repentia just because I had slots for them.
The new system allows armies to be built more effectively around a specific unit or strategic theme, which makes the game more diverse and more fun.
Hoodwink wrote: I'd rather see additional CP given to armies that are monobuild. Then, would you rather pick and choose the best units from multiple armies and soup them or get the additional CP for stratagems, rerolls, etc.?
Hoodwink wrote: I'd rather see additional CP given to armies that are monobuild. Then, would you rather pick and choose the best units from multiple armies and soup them or get the additional CP for stratagems, rerolls, etc.?
I like that idea.
Especially given that the major reason my Custodes end up being soup is that there's no other way to get them enough Command Points to do anything...
Hoodwink wrote: I'd rather see additional CP given to armies that are monobuild. Then, would you rather pick and choose the best units from multiple armies and soup them or get the additional CP for stratagems, rerolls, etc.?
See, this is a great idea... GW lurkers, pay attention.
Finding ways to I guess award people for mono-builds may be a good way to offset the obvious power differences.... herm.
Asmodai wrote: The current detachments are fine, you just shouldn't get a Chapter (Craftworld, Regiment, Hive World, etc.) trait unless all models in the army (instead of the detachment) have that Chapter keyword.
That way there's an actual decision to be made about whether its worth losing your specialization bonus for the flexibility to take units from outside that specialization.
So my chaos marines who its very fluffy for them to work alongside daemons have to lose their legion trait to bring along their daemons allies the fack?
I mean, the only real argument for the old FoC would be that you don't need as many HQ's and troops to make up your army, but from what I've seen most armies want to be fielding their troops choices for their own sake and not as a tax.
It's not like the old 2/6/3/3/3 organization chart ever made me bring Celestians or Repentia just because I had slots for them.
That is true. I guess I was just looking at ideas to address soup and super spam lists
darkcloak wrote: I like the new detachment system, it's much better than the formations of 7th.
I just want the codices to have their own detachment system printed in them. The ones I've leafed through seem to leave you unable to actually write a list unless you have the BrB and the detachments contained therein.
The main ones you'll be using aren't hard to memorise though.
You have you core Battalion (2 HQs, 3 troops minimum. Max 6 Troops and Elites, 3 for everything else) and all the rest are 1 HQ and minimum 3 of a specific slot except Supreme Command which is 3 HQs.
Again, I get this is a game, but how happy are you with playing against a "Death Guard" army thats 800 points DG, 700 points demons, and 500 points chaos because they want to pick and choose the "best" units from several codices, and use the strategems together?
Because otherwise I'm facing 2000 points of the "best" units from the Death Guard codex and rather than facing an interesting and diverse army, I'm dealing with one or two problematic options spammed as many times as possible?
Personally though, I'm happy because its way more interesting to me. I've always HATED the divide between marines and guard. One of the things I've always hated about the game compared to the setting is that the sameness of model typing within a codex often reduces the battle on the table to marines vs spikey marines. What's way more awesome to me? A bunch of power armored heroes defending a huge crowd of normal humans against a legion of corrupt super soldiers backed by the demonic horrors they serve.
Again, I get this is a game, but how happy are you with playing against a "Death Guard" army thats 800 points DG, 700 points demons, and 500 points chaos because they want to pick and choose the "best" units from several codices, and use the strategems together?
Because otherwise I'm facing 2000 points of the "best" units from the Death Guard codex and rather than facing an interesting and diverse army, I'm dealing with one or two problematic options spammed as many times as possible?
Personally though, I'm happy because its way more interesting to me. I've always HATED the divide between marines and guard. One of the things I've always hated about the game compared to the setting is that the sameness of model typing within a codex often reduces the battle on the table to marines vs spikey marines. What's way more awesome to me? A bunch of power armored heroes defending a huge crowd of normal humans against a legion of corrupt super soldiers backed by the demonic horrors they serve.
This, basically. If I am going to get trashed by an army, I'd rather it be Grey Knights deep striking in with massive suits of armour to save some beleaguered guardsmen (or whatever) [this is 8th edition GK] than just eighteen individual paladins led by Draigo [this is fifth edition GK].
I mean, the only real argument for the old FoC would be that you don't need as many HQ's and troops to make up your army, but from what I've seen most armies want to be fielding their troops choices for their own sake and not as a tax.
It's not like the old 2/6/3/3/3 organization chart ever made me bring Celestians or Repentia just because I had slots for them.
That is true. I guess I was just looking at ideas to address soup and super spam lists
I like "spam lists". A list should consist of a core of 1-2 units brought in great quantity supported by specifically specialized units brought in small quantity.
As a general rule, you have to have auxiliary units, because your core units can't do everything by themselves, or the supporting units add effectiveness to your core units.
What's great about the new force chart is that anything can be the core of your army if you want, and you can build your army about it.
I mean, the only real argument for the old FoC would be that you don't need as many HQ's and troops to make up your army, but from what I've seen most armies want to be fielding their troops choices for their own sake and not as a tax.
It's not like the old 2/6/3/3/3 organization chart ever made me bring Celestians or Repentia just because I had slots for them.
That is true. I guess I was just looking at ideas to address soup and super spam lists
I like "spam lists". A list should consist of a core of 1-2 units brought in great quantity supported by specifically specialized units brought in small quantity.
As a general rule, you have to have auxiliary units, because your core units can't do everything by themselves, or the supporting units add effectiveness to your core units.
What's great about the new force chart is that anything can be the core of your army if you want, and you can build your army about it.
I agree with this. It makes thematic sense to me that armies would deploy detachments built around a core of similar, if not identically equipped, units. (E.G. An Imperial Armoured Regiment built around Hellhounds instead of Leman Russ tanks is now possible, for example).
For every person playing their fluffy inquisition list there is another person when brings nothing but dark reapers and farseers. It's the latter group that bothers me. Spam is boring to play and this edition is the epitome of spammability.
fithos wrote: For every person playing their fluffy inquisition list there is another person when brings nothing but dark reapers and farseers. It's the latter group that bothers me. Spam is boring to play and this edition is the epitome of spammability.
The other side of the coin is that those players probably don't enjoy the way you play. In the end, everyone needs to respect how other people play as long as they are playing within the defined ruleset. This isn't a remark to you specifically, but it's something that needs to be said in general because a lot of people get super offended when others don't play the game the way they want.
fithos wrote: For every person playing their fluffy inquisition list there is another person when brings nothing but dark reapers and farseers. It's the latter group that bothers me. Spam is boring to play and this edition is the epitome of spammability.
A possible solution? Don't play vs. overly competitive players.
I have about 10-15 active/semi-active 40k-players in my area.
Over the years I've stopped playing against half of them because I quite simply don't enjoy playing with them.
They're not "bad people" and I have no issues hanging out with them, but I simply don't play wargames with them because their idea of a "fun/cool list" is vastly different from mine.
Stormonu wrote: I think the new detachments are a fine addition, it’s just that Command Points and Strategms have got out of control and certain units haven’t been well-tested for how they operate in allied armies.
Honestly, a way to fix the issue of Command Points and Stratagems would be to have more elite armies/unit choices take up multiple FOC slots.
It cuts down on soup a bit more while at the same time allowing for those armies when fielded as 'pure' choices to catch up with the lesser armies for CP/Stratagem usage.
With regards to 'certain units', I wonder how much of that might have to do with weird combinations popping up that might not have been expected or just in general how people still seem to play wildly different to how GW themselves do.
I saw somewhere someone suggest that CP should be done in the inverse of how it is now.
For example:
You start with X CP per 1,000pts,
Each Detachment you take reduces the number. (With the bigger detachments taking away less than the smaller ones)
Then "Souping" costs command points rather than gets you more.
And for "fluff reasons" it can be explained as the bureaucracy in high command between the different groups (Who's in overall charge, logistic issues with different army groups etc.)
I came back to the game under the promise that all my minis would be usable, and for the most part that is true. Remember, originally a Rogue Trader army could have almost any Imperial forces in it. Now, they haven't had a Rogue Trader Army list (that I know of) since Book of the Astronomicon.
fithos wrote: For every person playing their fluffy inquisition list there is another person when brings nothing but dark reapers and farseers. It's the latter group that bothers me. Spam is boring to play and this edition is the epitome of spammability.
A possible solution? Don't play vs. overly competitive players.
I have about 10-15 active/semi-active 40k-players in my area.
Over the years I've stopped playing against half of them because I quite simply don't enjoy playing with them.
They're not "bad people" and I have no issues hanging out with them, but I simply don't play wargames with them because their idea of a "fun/cool list" is vastly different from mine.
I think this is the heart of the issue.
Some people don't mind facing 10 Plagueburst Crawlers and calling that the game, while others want to see boatloads of ground troops and seeing games come down to the wire and not end by turn 4 with one side tabled.
It almost feels like you need a competitive ruleset for the WAAC players, and a ruleset for the people who want a tactically challenging game that is varied and interesting. Reading through the lists forum is always kind of disheartening because people want to be competitive, but play what they want, and these two things are in congruent in 40k (mostly). I adore terminator-only armies, but I'd lose 90% of my games if thats what I ran. It is what it is I suppose.
I'm working on a Corsair Prince's footdar army, drawing from craftworld eldar, dark eldar and forgeworld corsair armies. It's going to be very fluffy, and I have no interest in 40k tournaments whatsoever (which is good because the army would probably not do well). This would be impossible if we went back to the old FoC.
I don't think banning soup armies is about something being inherently bad about souping, isn't it more about being tired of seeing the same power combos? If each of these powerful units is confined to armies from its own codex then they will still be units that are too powerful, requiring them to get nerfed. Why not just nerf them and leave souping as it is? It won't happen as much if the power combo units become less powerful I'd think.
This nerfing stuff would probably take some time to get right (or right enough). Everyone is getting their codex in a short period of time and there are a lot of options in some cases (looking at you IoM). It should be doable though.
Zid wrote: It almost feels like you need a competitive ruleset for the WAAC players, and a ruleset for the people who want a tactically challenging game that is varied and interesting. Reading through the lists forum is always kind of disheartening because people want to be competitive, but play what they want, and these two things are in congruent in 40k (mostly). I adore terminator-only armies, but I'd lose 90% of my games if thats what I ran. It is what it is I suppose.
You mean like Matched Play vs Narrative Play?
If you want to apply gentleman's rules to a game, play Narrative, play League, play something where you and your opponent have some familiarity with each other and can agree on ground rules to a game.
Showing up to a random table at a random convention to play some random 40k player gives you a random result, go figure.
shortymcnostrill wrote: I'm working on a Corsair Prince's footdar army, drawing from craftworld eldar, dark eldar and forgeworld corsair armies. It's going to be very fluffy, and I have no interest in 40k tournaments whatsoever (which is good because the army would probably not do well). This would be impossible if we went back to the old FoC.
I don't think banning soup armies is about something being inherently bad about souping, isn't it more about being tired of seeing the same power combos? If each of these powerful units is confined to armies from its own codex then they will still be units that are too powerful, requiring them to get nerfed. Why not just nerf them and leave souping as it is? It won't happen as much if the power combo units become less powerful I'd think.
This nerfing stuff would probably take some time to get right (or right enough). Everyone is getting their codex in a short period of time and there are a lot of options in some cases (looking at you IoM). It should be doable though.
Yeah i agree, i've been saying we need Comp Scores. The Detachments are not the problem, you'll have BIS units not matter what. If we had 1 FoC, Eldar would just be
Farseer
Spiritseer
Ranger
Ranger
Ranger
Swooping Hawks
Swooping Hawks
Shiny Spears
Dark Reapers
Dark Reapers
Dark Reapers
WS WS
I like the CP for mono builds suggestion mentioned earlier. Someone should really let the GW rules team know about that one. It's far less painful to incentivise mono faction armies that ban soup lists. At least we have no lore-killing taudar builds running about this edition. I can definitely live with imperial allies, chaos allies + eldar allies. The other xenos book should be decently powerful to compensate for fewer options though.
Recent discussion in a lot of forums seems like a vast majority of people are pretty sick of "soup" lists that seem to be everywhere. Even "pure" lists are soup in a way, for example, Chaos running Alpha Legion + one other legion to get the best rules on the best units, or Innari running multiple units from various Eldar sects in a "single" army. It also seems that people are pretty peeved that many lists revolve around spamming a few units to win, such as the PBC list that seems popular, Obliterator spam, etc.
I get it, its a game, and people can play how they want. I don't disagree.
However, I will say, in my own personal opinion, it makes the game extremely un-interesting; many of the "competitive" battle reports are pretty stale, unless its one guy testing new models or a unique strategy. Even many of the top LVO lists were based around bending or breaking the rules in some way.
I hear a lot of proposed fixes, and a lot of them are pretty great. In my opinion though... why not bring back the old FOC model?
For those of you who haven't been around for a while, the FOC model was thus:
You could have a Max of two HQ's, Three Elites, Three Fast Attack, Six Troops, and Three Heavy Support in your army.
The caveat to this model was that some armies would bend these rules to fit their playstyle. So, for example, some armies could have multiple HQ's in a single slot (like IG), some armies could make elite's into troops (Deathwing Terminators), etc.
While there were obvious problems with this system still, it worked. Each slot had its "optimal" models, but it took a lot more thinking and strategy to make your army work when working within limitations. You could even go so far as to have an "auxiliary FOC" for detachment armies, so for example your Ultramarines would use a normal FOC, but you can take one aux FOC for a small IG contingent.
I guess I'm just sentimental; I really liked the old FOC model, and I still build my armies more or less in the same manner. What are some of your thoughts? Do you like detachments, or do you feel there is a better way to do it?
I think that you are conflating soup with the detachment rules. You can have a soup list in a single detachment. I think its the keywords (Imperium, Chaos) that you do not like.
I like the detachments. I usually go with a single Codex, but I usually run two detachments. The matched play rules suggest detachment maximums for organized play, and even allow you to add your own restrictions. Soup doesn't bother me. The rules for CPs and the stratagems in the Codex encourage detachments from a single source. Still, I think its fine to allow armies with detachments from two Codex. If you are at a tournament expect to see optimized lists.
You can absolutely build your list using the old style of FOC and feel happy about it. Its a Battalion. Play that old-school FOC list with pride! Just don't expect everyone to do it.
Recent discussion in a lot of forums seems like a vast majority of people are pretty sick of "soup" lists that seem to be everywhere. Even "pure" lists are soup in a way, for example, Chaos running Alpha Legion + one other legion to get the best rules on the best units, or Innari running multiple units from various Eldar sects in a "single" army. It also seems that people are pretty peeved that many lists revolve around spamming a few units to win, such as the PBC list that seems popular, Obliterator spam, etc.
I get it, its a game, and people can play how they want. I don't disagree.
However, I will say, in my own personal opinion, it makes the game extremely un-interesting; many of the "competitive" battle reports are pretty stale, unless its one guy testing new models or a unique strategy. Even many of the top LVO lists were based around bending or breaking the rules in some way.
I hear a lot of proposed fixes, and a lot of them are pretty great. In my opinion though... why not bring back the old FOC model?
For those of you who haven't been around for a while, the FOC model was thus:
You could have a Max of two HQ's, Three Elites, Three Fast Attack, Six Troops, and Three Heavy Support in your army.
The caveat to this model was that some armies would bend these rules to fit their playstyle. So, for example, some armies could have multiple HQ's in a single slot (like IG), some armies could make elite's into troops (Deathwing Terminators), etc.
While there were obvious problems with this system still, it worked. Each slot had its "optimal" models, but it took a lot more thinking and strategy to make your army work when working within limitations. You could even go so far as to have an "auxiliary FOC" for detachment armies, so for example your Ultramarines would use a normal FOC, but you can take one aux FOC for a small IG contingent.
I guess I'm just sentimental; I really liked the old FOC model, and I still build my armies more or less in the same manner. What are some of your thoughts? Do you like detachments, or do you feel there is a better way to do it?
I think that you are conflating soup with the detachment rules. You can have a soup list in a single detachment. I think its the keywords (Imperium, Chaos) that you do not like.
I like the detachments. I usually go with a single Codex, but I usually run two detachments. The matched play rules suggest detachment maximums for organized play, and even allow you to add your own restrictions. Soup doesn't bother me. The rules for CPs and the stratagems in the Codex encourage detachments from a single source. Still, I think its fine to allow armies with detachments from two Codex. If you are at a tournament expect to see optimized lists.
You can absolutely build your list using the old style of FOC and feel happy about it. Its a Battalion. Play that old-school FOC list with pride! Just don't expect everyone to do it.
Without soup tho some units are literally unplayable unless you take an Aux detachment, like Corsairs as an example. And i'm sure GW doesnt want to force Aux Detachments at all, nor should they.
I don't mind soup (and said so in my post). I tend to run mono-Codex, but have nothing against an opponent who has a detachment of AM and a detachment of BA.
supreme overlord wrote: Keep soup! Allow my inquisition army to be as fluffy and soupy as they're supposed to be!
This. My Ordo Hereticus army loves the soup. I really enjoy mixing in an extra 500pts of another faction just for a bit of a change up. The FOC can go jump off a cliff
I played against an army that had all of the following factions:
IG SoB GK BT IF
That is pretty crazy if you ask me.
Why is that crazy? Most of those factions are barely factions in the first place and have more or less been dropped by GW. They're largely non-optimal and lack the versatility to support 2000 points of worthwhile models and I'd be really, really surprised if they were topping the podium at any large event. They're even largely fluff coherent.
So what's the issue other than it doesn't fit into your definition of what a "faction" is?
craftworld_uk wrote: In my opinion, this thread is a case of blame the players not the game!
Don't get me wrong, I like all of the new detachments, they allow you to take armies like deathwing or kult of speed without special rules. With that said, if something is getting abused it's the games fault, because a game meant to be played competitively should have fair rules. Right now the balance between monolisting for special rules and multilisting to cherry pick units isn't a balanced proposition. However I don't feel like the detachments are the main cause of that, the issue is you can still get "chapter tactics" for FoCs, so you can often have your cake and eat it to. I feel like chapter tactics should be dependent on army wide keywords instead of FoC wide, so if you bring a soup army you don't get chapter tactics for any part of your army.
Ynarri and CE were exceptionally abusive of this, in addition to double dipping faction keywords for stratagems. I have little doubt that in the next FAQ they are going to get nerfed, and while GW is at it, if they want to preserve faction identity they should probably do something to support monofaction armies, such as my suggestion.
craftworld_uk wrote: In my opinion, this thread is a case of blame the players not the game!
It's a possibility.
I like the fact that Roboute can lead a force of primaris into battle, with Cawl at his side, and a whole battalion of Leman Russ on the left flank. To me, that seems fluffy as heck. But, as with all things, obviously some kind of limit will have to be set. Maybe just remove heavy allies from Matched play, so that it can stay in narrative and open?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's more the point of certain units being too good rather than the FOC being an issue. Prove me wrong
Your central premise is that every unit needs to be balanced against every other unit in the game, which is faulty. How do you balance a tomb spyder against a warp talon, or Roboute Guilliman against a dark reaper? There is no magic formula to perfectly balance individual units, because there are so many aspects to a models stat lines, and those aspects are advantageous in certain combinations but not universally so (a unit with power weapons and slow movement will underperform in any linear comparison). In addition there are incomparables such as how many points is a reroll aura worth? Instead GW tries to balance factions against each other, and point units based on analogs in other armies after roughly adjusting for incomparables.
One of the tools used to balance factions is that every Faction has things they are good at, and things they are not good at. Which brings us to the rub, Being able to patch one's flaws while effectively giving up nothing destroys faction identity, and imbalances the game. For instance you'll never see monofaction custodes do well in the current competitive environment, and that's not because the custodes are lacking over the top units, it's because they are the ultimate elite army, and that comes with tradeoffs. Soup armies don't have tradeoffs, it's all upside for them. The lack of Chapter tactics and stratagems were supposed to be the balance for soup armies, but it's comically easy to make an end run around those through the use of multiple detachments.
Take drukari as an example, why would you ever run them monofaction, they don't have psychers, and they don't have any staying power. Both of those can be easily addressed by adding CE.
Then there are monofaction armies like Necrons, Tau, and Orks. If you balance them to be able to compete with soup armies they will be more powerful than the single faction armies you see in casual play, if you don't they will never see the light of day in a competitive meta.
To be honest, the FOC was a 3rd ed creation that was well past its sell by date. While it prevented extreme abuses it didn't really encourage balanced armies - in many cases it was just a Troop tax. 5th ed was probably the best edition for the FOC because the objective rules encouraged taking Troops but I hated it nonetheless - probably because I play Eldar and our Troops choices were horrible in the context of 5th.
If GW was capable of creating a reasonably balanced system, I would favour a looser FOC which results in a premium being charged for redundancy. You can take a completely imbalanced force but the cost eventually becomes prohibitive. So let's say you have three Elite choices and two Troops choices - you must pay x% premium on the third Elite choice. You must pay an even higher premium on a fourth Elite choice. Although that's simply an illustrative example - rather than the rather arbitrary and abuse prone 1 squad = 1 slot in the FOC, I would introduce a requisition points system. So a half size squad of Troops may only give you 1 requisition point to spend on choices in other slots without attracting a premium whereas a full size squad might provide 2 requisition points.
I think the game has to be balanced at top keyword level or it will not be balanced at all. This is easier than balancing mono-faction options, so is also an overall good idea for the game. This means that, inevitably, players who don't want to take a mixed force will have weaker armies and it is why we see mixed Eldar, Chaos and Imperium doing well (and Tyranids outside of the states) these seem to be pretty balanced against one another, certainly more so than previous editions. Tau, Necrons and Orks are a different matter and will either need mixed force options added to be competitive or to be made stronger than other single faction codexes. Either seems reasonable. It is not realistic to have Blood Angels balanced against Orks and Imperium balanced against Orks, so just balance Imperium seems the reasonable solution.
I don't want the old FOC mechanics to be honest. I'm not fond of 8th edition overall but the new detachments system is one of the few things I really love.
IMHO it adds more variety. You want a biker army? Legal. A Walker heavy army? Legal. Etc... An army of drukhari fast attacks is 100% fluffy and a lot of fun to play while a list full of heavy support taken from the coven stuff and ravagers can be awesome as well. I don't want restrictions about what kind of units I have to play, maybe just limit flyers, heroes and LoWs, but not standard units.
The real problem is the possibility of mixing factions from different codexes. That should be banned. However some armies should be included in the same codex and be part of the same faction.
I mean chaos should be CSM and daemons, not 5+ different codexes. Mixing different marks is not a soup. GK, SoB, custodes, inquisition and Ad mech should be a single faction. All SM merged into a single codex, the different chapters should be something like the coven or wych cult keywords for drukhari or the different clans for the orks. Tyranids and gen cult into a single army as well, etc.
I don't mind the current set of detachments, though I do think some of them possibly shouldn't give any CP, and in some cases should possibly cost CP (the Supreme Command detachment is the primary culprit, I think). One suggestion I did see somewhere was to only give the base 3CP bonus for being battle-forged to mono-list armies. I like that idea. alternatively you could restrict all <Chapter Tactics> style bonuses to mono-list only.
The problem at the moment is the lack of trade-off for souping combined with an imbalance in the options available for different factions: Imperium get loads of options, Chaos also has lots, while Eldar get a decent array of options and Nids/GC get a few too. Meanwhile Tau, Orks and Necrons are restricted to their own books. It's too easy for some factions to cover their weaknesses thanks to the current system, while a bunch of armies are left with no way to do so and no meaningful advantage by staying mono-list.
In terms of aesthetics, it's also pretty grating to see some of the lists we saw at the LVO, for example. "Armies" of roving bands of characters from 2-3 different Codices with minimal troops from yet another book combined in an attempt to unlock as many CPs and Stratagems as possible just doesn't really look great, IMO.
IMO I think the detachment system is good at the core. A few things I would like to see changed about it to make non-soup armies more competitive.
1.) a CP bonus for staying pure/penalty for being soup. Something like an extra CP for each detachment if those detachments share all faction keywords. So for example your first battalion is 3 CP, a second battalion sharing all keywords is 4 CP. Or alternatively -1 CP for detachments that do not share all keywords. This hurts the I include a 200 point guard battalion just for CP soup option.
2.) Layered chapter tactics/stratagems. Have another bonus that gets unlocked for being a "pure" army. So as a bad example Imperial fists tactic could have been a detachment of imperial fists gets ignores cover, a pure army also gets re-roll wounds against structures.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's more the point of certain units being too good rather than the FOC being an issue. Prove me wrong
Your central premise is that every unit needs to be balanced against every other unit in the game, which is faulty. How do you balance a tomb spyder against a warp talon, or Roboute Guilliman against a dark reaper? There is no magic formula to perfectly balance individual units, because there are so many aspects to a models stat lines, and those aspects are advantageous in certain combinations but not universally so (a unit with power weapons and slow movement will underperform in any linear comparison). In addition there are incomparables such as how many points is a reroll aura worth? Instead GW tries to balance factions against each other, and point units based on analogs in other armies after roughly adjusting for incomparables.
One of the tools used to balance factions is that every Faction has things they are good at, and things they are not good at. Which brings us to the rub, Being able to patch one's flaws while effectively giving up nothing destroys faction identity, and imbalances the game. For instance you'll never see monofaction custodes do well in the current competitive environment, and that's not because the custodes are lacking over the top units, it's because they are the ultimate elite army, and that comes with tradeoffs. Soup armies don't have tradeoffs, it's all upside for them. The lack of Chapter tactics and stratagems were supposed to be the balance for soup armies, but it's comically easy to make an end run around those through the use of multiple detachments.
Take drukari as an example, why would you ever run them monofaction, they don't have psychers, and they don't have any staying power. Both of those can be easily addressed by adding CE.
Then there are monofaction armies like Necrons, Tau, and Orks. If you balance them to be able to compete with soup armies they will be more powerful than the single faction armies you see in casual play, if you don't they will never see the light of day in a competitive meta.
Thanks Grimgold, you put it much more eloquently than I did, haha.
Yes, this is exactly the problem I have. Its not that soup exists, because its very nature is for armies that would naturally be allied to work together on the table. I do like detachments too, but I felt like this was part of the problem. But, reading responses here, its true; the problem is that you can really pick and choose to fill holes from various codices, which results in over the top, OP armies. Theres a reason why you don't see top table Nids (whom have an amazing codex IMO) and probably won't see much top table Tau or Necrons, unless they have over the top mono-faction rules, which further imbalance the game and cause other armies to seem inferior.
I'd like to see benefits for armies that choose to stay mono-faction or focus on specific keywords (for example, Death Guard should be able to have a Nurgle Demons detachment with no negatives). There should be something to offset the power difference. This is the same issue I had with 6th, when they allowed the 2++ rerollable invun saves for Dark Eldar w/ Eldar abusive rules in the beginning. I like the idea of having multiple armies working together, but it needs to come with its own set of negatives instead of all upsides...
I do like the idea of limiting strategems to just your "primary" detachment (so if your Death Guard w/ CSM detachments, you can only use DG strategems), or having CP bonuses for monofaction. Theres a lot of ways to address the problems people are seeing, and I get now that the FOC isn't a solution; rose tinted glasses and all that.
Some ideas I've seen in this thread so far:
1) Bonuses for Monofaction armies (either CP bonuses or Chapter Rules only count if you run a single faction)
2) Limit Strategems to only the primary faction of lists
3) Balance at the top keyword level, this removes the abuse we see with secondary keywords allowing strategems to break certain units (like when we could DS primarchs...)
4) A points "tax" for taking the same unit over a certain amount of times, for example if you take over 3 Plagueburst Crawlers in a single detachment, you get taxed 40 points for each additional model (addresses super spam)
5) Return of "Comp Scores" in tournaments that address WAAC lists over fun lists
These are all great ideas. I love 40k, theres a reason I came back to it; the lore is far and away better than Warmahordes, but the mechanics issues are still pretty rampant as they were in 5th and 6th (and 7th from what I'm told). I like that GW fixes stuff, and that they are now (after so many years) addressing issues the community sees early, rather than "when the next codex comes out" or "wait for next edition".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: IMO I think the detachment system is good at the core. A few things I would like to see changed about it to make non-soup armies more competitive.
1.) a CP bonus for staying pure/penalty for being soup. Something like an extra CP for each detachment if those detachments share all faction keywords. So for example your first battalion is 3 CP, a second battalion sharing all keywords is 4 CP. Or alternatively -1 CP for detachments that do not share all keywords. This hurts the I include a 200 point guard battalion just for CP soup option.
2.) Layered chapter tactics/stratagems. Have another bonus that gets unlocked for being a "pure" army. So as a bad example Imperial fists tactic could have been a detachment of imperial fists gets ignores cover, a pure army also gets re-roll wounds against structures.
This second idea... so much yes.
Add a fluffy, but effective, rule that gives you a reason to be monofaction. Things like: Ultramarines can fall back, but still shoot (because they shall know no fear and all that...), Blood angels get +1 str on the charge, Tyranids get... something nidlike, etc.
1) Having detachments means you can do heavy skews without any drawback
2) The fact having multiple detachments, each keeps their own ability.
I think #2 is the big thing. It would help curb a lot of soup if taking detachments of different forces resulted in none of them getting their specials (or maybe just the detachment with the warlord), or even a limited set of generic abilities similar to how AOS works (if you mix a grand alliance, you get some very basic abilities, but lose any specific ones). I'll also add an unofficial #3: The way Command Points are set up, you are encouraged to spam cheap battalions if you can in order to get as many as possible; this is the opposite of what GW said CP would be for (in the 8th edition previews they made a big deal of saying it would be there to encourage mono faction and/or fluffy armies, but in fact we got the opposite. Gaming command points encourages soup and ignoring the fluff)
The issue is that there's no drawback for soup; and often soup helps negate weaknesses so it becomes mandatory to take soup, because you don't want to have the weakness but you want the strength.
IMHO it's worse than formations ever were. The biggest issue is 40k is not sized as a game where you should have elements of different forces together. 40k is still, despite having huge war machines, largely a company-level game. At that level you don't have various units sending squads to the battlefield, you start to see mixing and matching of different elements at brigade level (which is what the old Epic was; it was perfectly reasonable in Epic to see like an IG tank company fighting alongside elements from a Marine Battle Company).
auticus wrote: GWs game design is all about and has been for many years now all about all the perks with no drawbacks. Because drawbacks aren't fun.
Drawbacks are where tactics and strategy come into play, though. If both armies have no drawbacks, then it comes down to just dice. Eldar armies were always fast, but fragile, but space marines were slow but tougher, for example.
I don't buy it. If that were true I'd expect a more diverse selection of units and representation at these LVO style events.
If there were drawbacks in the list building phase, that would give actual meaningful choices. Right now the lists build themselves because they are fairly obvious in most cases with a few notable exceptions.
Negating chapter tactics for going soup isn't fun and isn't fluffy. CP is instead something that we can look at. One possibility i was thinking about was:
Your CP total is equal to the highest CP amount gained from a single mono faction in your army.
Your CP total is 3 (base) + 3 (IG battalion) +1 (IG Spearhead).
This creates more choices. The more mono faction you go with your detachments, the more CP you have.
If you soup, you can do it with a brigade and still be full of CP, but you lose on the chapter tactics. Alternatively you soup with multiple detachments and gain the chapter tactics, but you lose on CP.
The definition for mono faction would be based on any faction keyword different from "Imperium" "Chaos" "Aeldari". Things like SM chapters collaborating is fine, as is GSC + nids like associations.
I saw somewhere someone suggest that CP should be done in the inverse of how it is now.
For example:
You start with X CP per 1,000pts,
Each Detachment you take reduces the number. (With the bigger detachments taking away less than the smaller ones)
Then "Souping" costs command points rather than gets you more.
And for "fluff reasons" it can be explained as the bureaucracy in high command between the different groups (Who's in overall charge, logistic issues with different army groups etc.)
This one I rather like and if I had any interest in playing 40k at home(rather than just for league/tournament I can attend for very cheap to throw dice. Real games are 30k) would adopt this right away.
Spoletta wrote: Negating chapter tactics for going soup isn't fun and isn't fluffy. CP is instead something that we can look at. One possibility i was thinking about was:
Your CP total is equal to the highest CP amount gained from a single mono faction in your army.
Your CP total is 3 (base) + 3 (IG battalion) +1 (IG Spearhead).
This creates more choices. The more mono faction you go with your detachments, the more CP you have.
If you soup, you can do it with a brigade and still be full of CP, but you lose on the chapter tactics. Alternatively you soup with multiple detachments and gain the chapter tactics, but you lose on CP.
The definition for mono faction would be based on any faction keyword different from "Imperium" "Chaos" "Aeldari". Things like SM chapters collaborating is fine, as is GSC + nids like associations.
That is why I said you get extra or better chapter tactics for staying pure. bonuses not penalties. To me that is far less of a penalty than what you have here. As in your system, Sisters battaltion + Guard battalion +Inquisition vangaurd gets 6 CP, but Ravenguard battaltion + blood angesl battalion + dark angels vanguard gets 10? I'd rather see more of a middle road.
I like the idea that if the army all has the same army trait you get a bonus CP.
Because lets be honest. the Original FoC is pretty much similar to the detatchments. Almost everyone fits in a Battalion somewhere to get CPs
WHY? Because this edition is all about the Strategems and you need a CP bank to do that.
Give a bonus to armies with a mono-faction (ie read: codex) or a penalty to armies with several army traits/units.
Sorry Inquisitors....your Sisters are salty about that Marine Scout sgt, The Guard are too busy ooglinging the girls. and The Marines wonder why these half inept officers are in charge let alone taking forever to implement orders. Marines know this stuff...they don't have this slow as snail teamwork. They don't even have to communicate with the Battle Brothers as they already know the 'play'.
Ulthwe and Beil-tan are just as likely to try to upstage each other or do their 'own way'
Soup armies need toned down. Legal yes....but a codex army should always have the better synergies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Look at any Pro Bowl, All Star Game etc.
You take the best of the best an put them together and rarely do you get the teamwork of a really good team.
Mmmpi wrote: I like the multi-detachment lists. I don't remember chaos player complaining back in 3rd and 4th ed when they could have marines, demons, and traitor guard all in the same list.
You don't remember because you couldn't. Allies did not exist then (barring =][= ones for Imperium armies and Kroot mercs to an extent). CSM and Daemons were in one codex and Traitor Guard didn't exist until later into 4th ed. Closest you could get was LATD which had limited selections of available CSM and Daemon units.
"CSM and Daemons and Traitor Guard didn't exist" right before "Closest you could get was LATD (Lost and the Damned, traitor guard ) with Daemon and Chaos units..."
So yes, you could mix daemons, chaos, and traitor guard...
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...not in the way you're really pointing at?
Lost and the Damned wasn't "You can mix anything and everything!".
The Chaos Horde Army List:
HQ Arch Heretic(Chaos Lieutenant/Sorcerer), Chaos Space Marine Aspiring Champions(in the Eye of Terror book), Greater Daemons
Elites Big Mutants(Eye of Terror book unit), Possessed, Daemon Packs
Troops Traitors(Eye of Terror book), Mutants(including Plague Zombies--all of these in the Eye of Terror book), Gibbering Hordes(counts as Nurglings--from CSM book)
Fast Attack Chaos Hounds(Eye of Terror book), Daemonic Beasts, Traitor Recon(Sentinels, Roughriders, Hellhounds--all from the Guard book)
Heavy Support Defiler, Chaos Spawn(Eye of Terror book), Traitor tank(LRBT or Basilisk--from the Guard book. Also required a 1:1 ratio of tank to Traitor units)
You could further include 0-1 HQ, Elite, and Fast Attack and 0-2 Troop choices from the Chaos Space Marines book and if units had a Mark of Chaos they were always an Elite choice. Those units could not fulfill compulsory choices on the FOC.
admironheart wrote: I like the idea that if the army all has the same army trait you get a bonus CP.
Because lets be honest. the Original FoC is pretty much similar to the detatchments. Almost everyone fits in a Battalion somewhere to get CPs
WHY? Because this edition is all about the Strategems and you need a CP bank to do that.
Give a bonus to armies with a mono-faction (ie read: codex) or a penalty to armies with several army traits/units.
Sorry Inquisitors....your Sisters are salty about that Marine Scout sgt, The Guard are too busy ooglinging the girls. and The Marines wonder why these half inept officers are in charge let alone taking forever to implement orders. Marines know this stuff...they don't have this slow as snail teamwork. They don't even have to communicate with the Battle Brothers as they already know the 'play'.
Ulthwe and Beil-tan are just as likely to try to upstage each other or do their 'own way'
Soup armies need toned down. Legal yes....but a codex army should always have the better synergies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Look at any Pro Bowl, All Star Game etc.
You take the best of the best an put them together and rarely do you get the teamwork of a really good team.
auticus wrote: GWs game design is all about and has been for many years now all about all the perks with no drawbacks. Because drawbacks aren't fun.
That might have flown better if GW didn't just release an army with huge drawbacks, ie: Custodes. They have a small model count, unimpressive shooting, and no psychers, which seems like a lot of drawbacks for a company that has stepped away from drawbacks. Besides without faction specific strengths and weaknesses you lose a lot of the tactical portions of the game.
Sorry. I often get what people will normally play at competition levels even in casual games and their overall platform.
You are right. They do produce armies that have drawbacks. You don't typically see those armies though in the wild, at least after their first month or two, because they aren't strong tournament lists.
Strong tournament lists focus in on the elements that have no drawbacks. So I misspoke.
It almost feels like you need a competitive ruleset for the WAAC players, and a ruleset for the people who want a tactically challenging game that is varied and interesting.
These are not mutually exclusive qualities of a ruleset. Plenty of better game systems have managed to provide both.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sfshilo wrote: The easy solution is to require a Patrol, Battalion, and/or Brigade in any force. Then you can add detachments at will.
Are people not already doing this? A list without a Battalion seems like it generates a miserable amount of CP.
It almost feels like you need a competitive ruleset for the WAAC players, and a ruleset for the people who want a tactically challenging game that is varied and interesting.
These are not mutually exclusive qualities of a ruleset. Plenty of better game systems have managed to provide both.
I don't disagree, I played Warmahordes competitively for two years back in MACH 2. It was great the way the game felt, each army was varied and unique, and even the most bizarre units found a way into certain characters lists. I only quit because the tournament scene was rife with cheaters; there was no shortage of games where you'd catch someone doing something illegal and have to call them out, even cost me a few games because "i called it too late" according to the TO.
You can have an interesting game that is competitive. Its just in its current state, 8ths competitive scene is not interesting.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's more the point of certain units being too good rather than the FOC being an issue. Prove me wrong
Your central premise is that every unit needs to be balanced against every other unit in the game, which is faulty. How do you balance a tomb spyder against a warp talon, or Roboute Guilliman against a dark reaper? There is no magic formula to perfectly balance individual units, because there are so many aspects to a models stat lines, and those aspects are advantageous in certain combinations but not universally so (a unit with power weapons and slow movement will underperform in any linear comparison). In addition there are incomparables such as how many points is a reroll aura worth? Instead GW tries to balance factions against each other, and point units based on analogs in other armies after roughly adjusting for incomparables.
One of the tools used to balance factions is that every Faction has things they are good at, and things they are not good at. Which brings us to the rub, Being able to patch one's flaws while effectively giving up nothing destroys faction identity, and imbalances the game. For instance you'll never see monofaction custodes do well in the current competitive environment, and that's not because the custodes are lacking over the top units, it's because they are the ultimate elite army, and that comes with tradeoffs. Soup armies don't have tradeoffs, it's all upside for them. The lack of Chapter tactics and stratagems were supposed to be the balance for soup armies, but it's comically easy to make an end run around those through the use of multiple detachments.
Take drukari as an example, why would you ever run them monofaction, they don't have psychers, and they don't have any staying power. Both of those can be easily addressed by adding CE.
Then there are monofaction armies like Necrons, Tau, and Orks. If you balance them to be able to compete with soup armies they will be more powerful than the single faction armies you see in casual play, if you don't they will never see the light of day in a competitive meta.
1. Easy. Compare point costs and the damage the units cause, and potential abilities. And if the point costs are THAT far apart for most targets and the abilities of the unit don't make it worth it, you fix the issue.
It isn't rocket science.
2. You're building a list to ignore weaknesses anyway. Allies and different types of detachments never changed this.
3. Therefore, if point costs are correct in the first place, it doesn't matter what you're plugging in.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's more the point of certain units being too good rather than the FOC being an issue. Prove me wrong
Your central premise is that every unit needs to be balanced against every other unit in the game, which is faulty. How do you balance a tomb spyder against a warp talon, or Roboute Guilliman against a dark reaper? There is no magic formula to perfectly balance individual units, because there are so many aspects to a models stat lines, and those aspects are advantageous in certain combinations but not universally so (a unit with power weapons and slow movement will underperform in any linear comparison). In addition there are incomparables such as how many points is a reroll aura worth? Instead GW tries to balance factions against each other, and point units based on analogs in other armies after roughly adjusting for incomparables.
One of the tools used to balance factions is that every Faction has things they are good at, and things they are not good at. Which brings us to the rub, Being able to patch one's flaws while effectively giving up nothing destroys faction identity, and imbalances the game. For instance you'll never see monofaction custodes do well in the current competitive environment, and that's not because the custodes are lacking over the top units, it's because they are the ultimate elite army, and that comes with tradeoffs. Soup armies don't have tradeoffs, it's all upside for them. The lack of Chapter tactics and stratagems were supposed to be the balance for soup armies, but it's comically easy to make an end run around those through the use of multiple detachments.
Take drukari as an example, why would you ever run them monofaction, they don't have psychers, and they don't have any staying power. Both of those can be easily addressed by adding CE.
Then there are monofaction armies like Necrons, Tau, and Orks. If you balance them to be able to compete with soup armies they will be more powerful than the single faction armies you see in casual play, if you don't they will never see the light of day in a competitive meta.
1. Easy. Compare point costs and the damage the units cause, and potential abilities. And if the point costs are THAT far apart for most targets and the abilities of the unit don't make it worth it, you fix the issue.
It isn't rocket science.
2. You're building a list to ignore weaknesses anyway. Allies and different types of detachments never changed this.
3. Therefore, if point costs are correct in the first place, it doesn't matter what you're plugging in.
The problem with that is supporting/buffing units are near-impossible to cost when they can affect more than a single set amount of units. For example, do you cost a KFF Mek assuming that he’s bubbling a trukk? 30 orks? 3 Lobbas? You can theoretically daisy-chain squads totaling hundreds of points in range of the bubble, but he won’t always be bubbling hundreds of wounds, so how do you cost the force field? Similarly do you cost razorbacks with the cost of a Guilliman buff calculated in or not?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's more the point of certain units being too good rather than the FOC being an issue. Prove me wrong
Your central premise is that every unit needs to be balanced against every other unit in the game, which is faulty. How do you balance a tomb spyder against a warp talon, or Roboute Guilliman against a dark reaper? There is no magic formula to perfectly balance individual units, because there are so many aspects to a models stat lines, and those aspects are advantageous in certain combinations but not universally so (a unit with power weapons and slow movement will underperform in any linear comparison). In addition there are incomparables such as how many points is a reroll aura worth? Instead GW tries to balance factions against each other, and point units based on analogs in other armies after roughly adjusting for incomparables.
One of the tools used to balance factions is that every Faction has things they are good at, and things they are not good at. Which brings us to the rub, Being able to patch one's flaws while effectively giving up nothing destroys faction identity, and imbalances the game. For instance you'll never see monofaction custodes do well in the current competitive environment, and that's not because the custodes are lacking over the top units, it's because they are the ultimate elite army, and that comes with tradeoffs. Soup armies don't have tradeoffs, it's all upside for them. The lack of Chapter tactics and stratagems were supposed to be the balance for soup armies, but it's comically easy to make an end run around those through the use of multiple detachments.
Take drukari as an example, why would you ever run them monofaction, they don't have psychers, and they don't have any staying power. Both of those can be easily addressed by adding CE.
Then there are monofaction armies like Necrons, Tau, and Orks. If you balance them to be able to compete with soup armies they will be more powerful than the single faction armies you see in casual play, if you don't they will never see the light of day in a competitive meta.
1. Easy. Compare point costs and the damage the units cause, and potential abilities. And if the point costs are THAT far apart for most targets and the abilities of the unit don't make it worth it, you fix the issue.
It isn't rocket science.
2. You're building a list to ignore weaknesses anyway. Allies and different types of detachments never changed this.
3. Therefore, if point costs are correct in the first place, it doesn't matter what you're plugging in.
The problem with that is supporting/buffing units are near-impossible to cost when they can affect more than a single set amount of units. For example, do you cost a KFF Mek assuming that he’s bubbling a trukk? 30 orks? 3 Lobbas? You can theoretically daisy-chain squads totaling hundreds of points in range of the bubble, but he won’t always be bubbling hundreds of wounds, so how do you cost the force field? Similarly do you cost razorbacks with the cost of a Guilliman buff calculated in or not?
You cost the fighters without the buffer, and then you cost the buffer as though they're buffing anything they feel like. Obviously some buffs don't work in certain areas as well (a Chaplain is better off with Vanguard and a Librarian is better off powering up Centurions compared to both doing something to a Tactical Squad), so you NEED to be sure you're doing that correctly.
Recent discussion in a lot of forums seems like a vast majority of people are pretty sick of "soup" lists that seem to be everywhere. Even "pure" lists are soup in a way, for example, Chaos running Alpha Legion + one other legion to get the best rules on the best units, or Innari running multiple units from various Eldar sects in a "single" army. It also seems that people are pretty peeved that many lists revolve around spamming a few units to win, such as the PBC list that seems popular, Obliterator spam, etc.
I get it, its a game, and people can play how they want. I don't disagree.
However, I will say, in my own personal opinion, it makes the game extremely un-interesting; many of the "competitive" battle reports are pretty stale, unless its one guy testing new models or a unique strategy. Even many of the top LVO lists were based around bending or breaking the rules in some way.
I hear a lot of proposed fixes, and a lot of them are pretty great. In my opinion though... why not bring back the old FOC model?
For those of you who haven't been around for a while, the FOC model was thus:
You could have a Max of two HQ's, Three Elites, Three Fast Attack, Six Troops, and Three Heavy Support in your army.
The caveat to this model was that some armies would bend these rules to fit their playstyle. So, for example, some armies could have multiple HQ's in a single slot (like IG), some armies could make elite's into troops (Deathwing Terminators), etc.
While there were obvious problems with this system still, it worked. Each slot had its "optimal" models, but it took a lot more thinking and strategy to make your army work when working within limitations. You could even go so far as to have an "auxiliary FOC" for detachment armies, so for example your Ultramarines would use a normal FOC, but you can take one aux FOC for a small IG contingent.
I guess I'm just sentimental; I really liked the old FOC model, and I still build my armies more or less in the same manner. What are some of your thoughts? Do you like detachments, or do you feel there is a better way to do it?
I totally agree with you. Bring back the FOC, of course. Yes. Please.
The FOC never should had been retired in the first place...
It seems that GW has managed to destroy Warhammer Fantasy and has ruined 40k between the beginning of 40k 5th edition and now. I played a lot in 3rd and 4th edition and only a little bit at the beginning of the 5th edition, and things were radically differents. It seems that insanity has gain reign in GW and they only want to push sales more and more, and any hint of game balance is right out the window now. I don't really know what the fok happened, but as is right now, 8th edition is not 40k. That people claim that is better than before (7th ed?) is really discouraging...
I think that the game need to be re-thinked and brought back to its essence. What is really the purpose of 40k? It is a game, that is true, but what makes it special? Not the rules, there are much better rulesets out there, nor the models, there are much much better miniatures elsewhere... Its the back story, background and the 40k universe. That is the unique thing that differenciates 40k from everything else. And I think that 40k as a game should be a representation of said stories and background. As it is right now, it is not. Is a "bring all you have!!" mess...
Please, explain to me, what is the point to have different battle roles if there are all sorts of detachments to include all the slots of each role you want? What is the point of having a Heavy Support role, if you have a detachment in which you can include all the slots "Heavy Support"? It makes no sense at all. There are no restrictions or limitations or anything whatsoever. The battle roles concept is meaningless in 8th edition. It baffles my mind.
But... Wait. Maybe, maybe if you can only include one detachment it would be some sort of balancing resort... But no... You can include all the detachments that you wish! So you can have one detachments with all slots "Heavy Support", another with all the slots "Elites", another one with all the slots "HQ"... What is the point of the different unit roles? Really? Am I the only one that think this?
Above all those things, then it comes the worst of all. You have different codexes and index books... At first glance, the same as before, a good old codex with certain rules and characteristics for a certain 40k army... But then, you look at the damn "keyword" thingy and it is clear that in reality, you can mix and match all the units you see fit, without disadvantages, because the basic "factions" are so wide that in the end, those make the codexes utterly meaningless. Combined with the detachments and useless battle roles, you have that you can take everything you want no matter what, and still be a "battle forged" army... "Do you want an army of all Chaos lords and Greater demons? You can have it!" "Do you want an army of all Baneblades?" You can have it" "All Obliterators and bloodletters?" "Here! Have it!" "Free for all!"... Absolutely insane... It is absurd. What's the point, really?
What is the point of the OPEN game then? If the "Matched play" rules allow you to make army lists of whatever you want, no restrictions, no disadvantages... Why anybody would play "open play" then? I don't understand. Either GW is completely and utterly incompentent and unable to make proper balanced rules to their universe, or GW is purportedly doing the rules badly to sell models as they want people buy them... I don't know wich one is worse...
So, it is all an absurd huge meaningless mess.
I think it would be much more fun and a much more rewarding experience for competitive players if the codexes and rules would be a lot more restrictives and tight, allowing only certain amount of certain units and enforcing a FOC or a similar organization rules to make armies as close as their background counterparts as possible. Think about this, if the rules and codexes would be more balanced and restricted, it would win the best player on the table, and not the one that made the more abominable list (as it is happening right now).
*Sorry, i don't know why my previous post was sent 3 times, if any mod could please delete the wrong ones, i already edited and deleted its contents, thanks!
Sorry again, Please continue with the thread topic.
I remember when people played a more restrictive codexes/games. Those were indeed the glory days. One could spam Wave Serpents, Scatter Bikes, Flying Croissants, and Wraiths to name a few. Ye olde days of Starcannons, how I miss thee.
The FOC kept things simple, and you could just spam that single OP unit as much as you wanted. These were the good old days where everyone was happy, full of joy, and just itching to have their units mowed down by whatever thing was in fashion.
Why can't we have nice things? Why can't we have a single FOC detachment games where we could easily just forfeit a game because we knew the bastard in front of us was wielding the flavor of the month that nothing could stand against? It gave us more time to paint!
This single faction spam also kept the flavor god damn flavorful! Everyone knows Necrons are just a bunch of flying Croissants and that Craftworlds are just their serpents and scatter lasers. The flavor, the lore, the history, was so rich with this beautiful setup. It was indeed the best timeline.
"Do you want an army of all Chaos lords and Greater demons? You can have it!" "Do you want an army of all Baneblades?" You can have it" "All Obliterators and bloodletters?" "Here! Have it!" "Free for all!"... Absolutely insane... It is absurd. What's the point, really?
Although you might disagree with it, the point is to have fun.
Eldarsif wrote: I remember when people played a more restrictive codexes/games. Those were indeed the glory days. One could spam Wave Serpents, Scatter Bikes, Flying Croissants, and Wraiths to name a few. Ye olde days of Starcannons, how I miss thee.
The FOC kept things simple, and you could just spam that single OP unit as much as you wanted. These were the good old days where everyone was happy, full of joy, and just itching to have their units mowed down by whatever thing was in fashion.
Why can't we have nice things? Why can't we have a single FOC detachment games where we could easily just forfeit a game because we knew the bastard in front of us was wielding the flavor of the month that nothing could stand against? It gave us more time to paint!
This single faction spam also kept the flavor god damn flavorful! Everyone knows Necrons are just a bunch of flying Croissants and that Craftworlds are just their serpents and scatter lasers. The flavor, the lore, the history, was so rich with this beautiful setup. It was indeed the best timeline.
You understand that all of this is still true, and in fact made worse by the free for all army construction rules we have now, right?
"Do you want an army of all Chaos lords and Greater demons? You can have it!" "Do you want an army of all Baneblades?" You can have it" "All Obliterators and bloodletters?" "Here! Have it!" "Free for all!"... Absolutely insane... It is absurd. What's the point, really?
Although you might disagree with it, the point is to have fun.
And you also understand that people have fun with restrictions, right? Its kind of the whole idea behind a ruleset for a game. We could do whatever we want with our models, but we enjoy playing with a restricted set of rules that tell us what we can and can't do when playing the game.
Eldarsif wrote: I remember when people played a more restrictive codexes/games. Those were indeed the glory days. One could spam Wave Serpents, Scatter Bikes, Flying Croissants, and Wraiths to name a few. Ye olde days of Starcannons, how I miss thee.
The FOC kept things simple, and you could just spam that single OP unit as much as you wanted. These were the good old days where everyone was happy, full of joy, and just itching to have their units mowed down by whatever thing was in fashion.
Why can't we have nice things? Why can't we have a single FOC detachment games where we could easily just forfeit a game because we knew the bastard in front of us was wielding the flavor of the month that nothing could stand against? It gave us more time to paint!
This single faction spam also kept the flavor god damn flavorful! Everyone knows Necrons are just a bunch of flying Croissants and that Craftworlds are just their serpents and scatter lasers. The flavor, the lore, the history, was so rich with this beautiful setup. It was indeed the best timeline.
You understand that all of this is still true, and in fact made worse by the free for all army construction rules we have now, right?
"Do you want an army of all Chaos lords and Greater demons? You can have it!" "Do you want an army of all Baneblades?" You can have it" "All Obliterators and bloodletters?" "Here! Have it!" "Free for all!"... Absolutely insane... It is absurd. What's the point, really?
Although you might disagree with it, the point is to have fun.
And you also understand that people have fun with restrictions, right? Its kind of the whole idea behind a ruleset for a game. We could do whatever we want with our models, but we enjoy playing with a restricted set of rules that tell us what we can and can't do when playing the game.
It's strictly not a free-for-all as there are actual limitations, but the current system is not worse despite people's claim. That is conjecture based on people being mad at Imperial Soup and/or very specific army bonuses I would argue should not be in the game(like the army-wide -1 to hit) to begin with. The game is still restricted. It's just not restricted like you specifically want it.
I have fun with restrictions. It is called the 8th edition and I have had a blast with it besides some issues(armywide -1 to hit as I have mentioned), but restricting the FoC further has little to no effect except giving us back the whining about troop taxing and having the designers add special rules for HQ to move units around in slots. This idea that we should all use 4th,5th or whateverth FoC chart is just nostalgia that has no bearing on the actual fun of the game. I mean, technically you can still play those editions if you really want. Enjoy all the balance of those editions and all.
Here is the thing: The designers did their best to break those FoC limitations for years. They gave us units that moved between slots and they gave us formations(which could be fun, but were mostly horribly implemented in my opinion). By restricting the FoC further you are just arguing to get that back and it more or less is doing the same thing people are complaining about. Now, I'll admit I am biased since I play Saim-Hann, Deathwing, and Ravenwing armies and this old FoC nostalgia is basically saying I shouldn't be able to play anything but Guardians, Dire Avengers, and TAC marines for the most part.
When I read over the complaints about "soup" I just see mostly people complaining about units and rules that would STILL be a problem even if we were to remove soup. This is ignoring the idea that the only real soup is Imperial as a faction. Ynnari with Drukhari and Craftworlds would still exist and Dark Reapers and Shining Spears would still exist. None of that would be removed for example by removing soup so at the end it just feels like people want restriction for sake of restriction and imagine that by having it forced would somehow make the game more balanced.
The game was imbalanced for decades despite all the restrictions and people complained and complained and complained, but as soon as a new edition comes people suddenly start to think positively about the old editions for some reason.
One problem with soup is also value of units depends so much on rest of army. It makes just balancing things even less close to balance. Unit can be balanced more or less within it's own army but part of soup it becomes even better. So how to balance it? Part of soup? Becomes bad as stand alone. Stand alone? Soup becomes too good.
It's strictly not a free-for-all as there are actual limitations, but the current system is not worse despite people's claim. That is conjecture based on people being mad at Imperial Soup and/or very specific army bonuses I would argue should not be in the game(like the army-wide -1 to hit) to begin with. The game is still restricted. It's just not restricted like you specifically want it.
Worse or better is based on what people want, but its ludicrous to claim that the issues with 5th (spamming problem units) are the same or better now that we have less restrictions. It is a complete falsehood. If you have issues in 5th with people spamming 3 squads of Dark Reapers, then the ability to take as many as the points will allow (minus the HQ taxes for the detachments) is even more problematic.
I have fun with restrictions. It is called the 8th edition and I have had a blast with it besides some issues(armywide -1 to hit as I have mentioned), but restricting the FoC further has little to no effect except giving us back the whining about troop taxing and having the designers add special rules for HQ to move units around in slots. This idea that we should all use 4th,5th or whateverth FoC chart is just nostalgia that has no bearing on the actual fun of the game. I mean, technically you can still play those editions if you really want. Enjoy all the balance of those editions and all.
Bringing back a more restrictive army building system would fix a number of hotly debated and commonly complained about aspect with soup lists or being able to spam even more of a single unit type.
Here is the thing: The designers did their best to break those FoC limitations for years. They gave us units that moved between slots and they gave us formations(which could be fun, but were mostly horribly implemented in my opinion). By restricting the FoC further you are just arguing to get that back and it more or less is doing the same thing people are complaining about. Now, I'll admit I am biased since I play Saim-Hann, Deathwing, and Ravenwing armies and this old FoC nostalgia is basically saying I shouldn't be able to play anything but Guardians, Dire Avengers, and TAC marines for the most part.
If I had my way, I'd include more fluffy abilities to swap in troop choices, but a more restrictive army building criteria would make the game more interesting, rather than less. People would have to think about what they're willing to take and sacrifice, rather than just add more detachments when they run out of the slot they want.
When I read over the complaints about "soup" I just see mostly people complaining about units and rules that would STILL be a problem even if we were to remove soup. This is ignoring the idea that the only real soup is Imperial as a faction. Ynnari with Drukhari and Craftworlds would still exist and Dark Reapers and Shining Spears would still exist. None of that would be removed for example by removing soup so at the end it just feels like people want restriction for sake of restriction and imagine that by having it forced would somehow make the game more balanced.
You are aware that you could remove soup and address the balance issues, right? Soup is still a problem even if every unit is more or less balanced because it completely nullifies the individual aspects of each faction (not to mention Imperium, Chaos, and Eldar are the only real beneficiaries) by being able to pick and choose the best of each slot/unit type from whatever book you want.
The game was imbalanced for decades despite all the restrictions and people complained and complained and complained, but as soon as a new edition comes people suddenly start to think positively about the old editions for some reason.
Gee, its almost as though each edition didn't actually fix anything, just simply changed a bunch of stuff that didn't address many of the complaints. Not to mention there is more than one person complaining, so, yeah, different people will complain at different times for different reasons. Might be a bit of a shock, I know, but I disliked many aspects of 5th, but the solution wasn't to burn it to the ground and replace it with the dumpster fire that was 6th/7th.
TL;DR properly done restrictions make the game interesting, and would address a number of issues involving 'souping' and allies, but would still obviously need a balance pass simultaneously.
The point of Eldarsif is that you are taking this as a black or white situation with the present situation being "No restrictions" and the past situation being "Restrictions".
When the reality is that the past situation was a more restrictive system that was always ignored in favour of special rules to allow people to play the armies they want with units changing places and forcing you to take units that you don't want in tactical roles that you don't want because it was mandatory, and the present situation is an acknowledgement by the designers that people actually want a simple and easy system to make their armies as they want inside a organized sistem with limitations.
8TH is a different system. It is not, objetively, a worse system. If you prefer the old system thats fine, but this dichotomy, presenting the old 5th edition FOC has more strategic, interesting, etc... is a falsehood. Maybe it was more interesting for YOU, but thats not an objetive value on itself.
It's strictly not a free-for-all as there are actual limitations, but the current system is not worse despite people's claim. That is conjecture based on people being mad at Imperial Soup and/or very specific army bonuses I would argue should not be in the game(like the army-wide -1 to hit) to begin with. The game is still restricted. It's just not restricted like you specifically want it.
Worse or better is based on what people want, but its ludicrous to claim that the issues with 5th (spamming problem units) are the same or better now that we have less restrictions. It is a complete falsehood. If you have issues in 5th with people spamming 3 squads of Dark Reapers, then the ability to take as many as the points will allow (minus the HQ taxes for the detachments) is even more problematic.
I have fun with restrictions. It is called the 8th edition and I have had a blast with it besides some issues(armywide -1 to hit as I have mentioned), but restricting the FoC further has little to no effect except giving us back the whining about troop taxing and having the designers add special rules for HQ to move units around in slots. This idea that we should all use 4th,5th or whateverth FoC chart is just nostalgia that has no bearing on the actual fun of the game. I mean, technically you can still play those editions if you really want. Enjoy all the balance of those editions and all.
Bringing back a more restrictive army building system would fix a number of hotly debated and commonly complained about aspect with soup lists or being able to spam even more of a single unit type.
Here is the thing: The designers did their best to break those FoC limitations for years. They gave us units that moved between slots and they gave us formations(which could be fun, but were mostly horribly implemented in my opinion). By restricting the FoC further you are just arguing to get that back and it more or less is doing the same thing people are complaining about. Now, I'll admit I am biased since I play Saim-Hann, Deathwing, and Ravenwing armies and this old FoC nostalgia is basically saying I shouldn't be able to play anything but Guardians, Dire Avengers, and TAC marines for the most part.
If I had my way, I'd include more fluffy abilities to swap in troop choices, but a more restrictive army building criteria would make the game more interesting, rather than less. People would have to think about what they're willing to take and sacrifice, rather than just add more detachments when they run out of the slot they want.
When I read over the complaints about "soup" I just see mostly people complaining about units and rules that would STILL be a problem even if we were to remove soup. This is ignoring the idea that the only real soup is Imperial as a faction. Ynnari with Drukhari and Craftworlds would still exist and Dark Reapers and Shining Spears would still exist. None of that would be removed for example by removing soup so at the end it just feels like people want restriction for sake of restriction and imagine that by having it forced would somehow make the game more balanced.
You are aware that you could remove soup and address the balance issues, right? Soup is still a problem even if every unit is more or less balanced because it completely nullifies the individual aspects of each faction (not to mention Imperium, Chaos, and Eldar are the only real beneficiaries) by being able to pick and choose the best of each slot/unit type from whatever book you want.
The game was imbalanced for decades despite all the restrictions and people complained and complained and complained, but as soon as a new edition comes people suddenly start to think positively about the old editions for some reason.
Gee, its almost as though each edition didn't actually fix anything, just simply changed a bunch of stuff that didn't address many of the complaints. Not to mention there is more than one person complaining, so, yeah, different people will complain at different times for different reasons. Might be a bit of a shock, I know, but I disliked many aspects of 5th, but the solution wasn't to burn it to the ground and replace it with the dumpster fire that was 6th/7th.
TL;DR properly done restrictions make the game interesting, and would address a number of issues involving 'souping' and allies, but would still obviously need a balance pass simultaneously.
The need for souping wouldn't exist if proper balance existed in the first place.
If you take care of that, THEN you can see if there's a need to eliminate allies. Allies were meant to be a compliment, not a crutch, but it only became that because of balance. Take away soup and people are still going to run the strongest mono-faction (no souping doesn't stop Eldar and never has).
In another post i said 7ths rules with 8ths detatchments would be golden. Because 7th rules tones down all the units causing problems now because 8ths rules are too spammable.
This edition is not about spamming a unit because its good. Its spamming a unit that takes advantage of a rule or loophole in the rules.
And where the OPs idea is to bring everyone down to one type of detachment for equality it wont work because some armies can feild better units in every section where some armies have to rely on one unit type just to not get crushed.
Right now the rules need a major overhaul to bring more equality to matched play.
vaurapung wrote: In another post i said 7ths rules with 8ths detatchments would be golden. Because 7th rules tones down all the units causing problems now because 8ths rules are too spammable.
This edition is not about spamming a unit because its good. Its spamming a unit that takes advantage of a rule or loophole in the rules.
And where the OPs idea is to bring everyone down to one type of detachment for equality it wont work because some armies can feild better units in every section where some armies have to rely on one unit type just to not get crushed.
Right now the rules need a major overhaul to bring more equality to matched play.
I can see this. PBC spam is effective because everything auto-hits, many of the characters used break rules or abuse rules, etc.
Galas wrote: The point of Eldarsif is that you are taking this as a black or white situation with the present situation being "No restrictions" and the past situation being "Restrictions".
When the reality is that the past situation was a more restrictive system that was always ignored in favour of special rules to allow people to play the armies they want with units changing places and forcing you to take units that you don't want in tactical roles that you don't want because it was mandatory, and the present situation is an acknowledgement by the designers that people actually want a simple and easy system to make their armies as they want inside a organized sistem with limitations.
8TH is a different system. It is not, objetively, a worse system. If you prefer the old system thats fine, but this dichotomy, presenting the old 5th edition FOC has more strategic, interesting, etc... is a falsehood. Maybe it was more interesting for YOU, but thats not an objetive value on itself.
Galas wrote: The point of Eldarsif is that you are taking this as a black or white situation with the present situation being "No restrictions" and the past situation being "Restrictions".
Except that I'm distinctly not treating this as a black and white issue. I explicitly stated that a 5th edition structure with more fluffy troop swaps would be right up my alley; I'm also for a more structured (restricted) allied system so that we can't just take 7 codices worth of units freely.
When the reality is that the past situation was a more restrictive system that was always ignored in favour of special rules to allow people to play the armies they want with units changing places and forcing you to take units that you don't want in tactical roles that you don't want because it was mandatory, and the present situation is an acknowledgement by the designers that people actually want a simple and easy system to make their armies as they want inside a organized sistem with limitations.
Yes, the 5th ed system had issues. The solution wasn't to throw it all away and just let people take virtually any army they wanted, it was to allow for interesting troops and HQ to customize the core of the army, while still restricting the amount of certain units you could spam in each slot. Plus, the 5th ed system is significantly simpler and easier, so the new system is a failure if the designers actually wanted something simpler and easier.
8TH is a different system. It is not, objetively, a worse system. If you prefer the old system thats fine, but this dichotomy, presenting the old 5th edition FOC has more strategic, interesting, etc... is a falsehood. Maybe it was more interesting for YOU, but thats not an objetive value on itself.
I literally acknowledged that the new system being better or worse was up to individual preference. But having a stricter system that forces someone to actually decide what they want to bring does make it more strategic compared to a system where you can literally take any number of any type of unit you want with unlimited detachments. You may not place value on that, but I do.
The need for souping wouldn't exist if proper balance existed in the first place.
If you take care of that, THEN you can see if there's a need to eliminate allies. Allies were meant to be a compliment, not a crutch, but it only became that because of balance. Take away soup and people are still going to run the strongest mono-faction (no souping doesn't stop Eldar and never has).
Isn't the solution very simple? Just restrict all CPs and stratagems to their own detachments only, *unless* the detachments share same book *and* subfaction. There, no more CP farms, you can bring soup if you want, but single book will have advantage of more CP flexibility, while the relaxed army construction is kept for fluffy players...
Galas wrote: The point of Eldarsif is that you are taking this as a black or white situation with the present situation being "No restrictions" and the past situation being "Restrictions".
Except that I'm distinctly not treating this as a black and white issue. I explicitly stated that a 5th edition structure with more fluffy troop swaps would be right up my alley; I'm also for a more structured (restricted) allied system so that we can't just take 7 codices worth of units freely.
When the reality is that the past situation was a more restrictive system that was always ignored in favour of special rules to allow people to play the armies they want with units changing places and forcing you to take units that you don't want in tactical roles that you don't want because it was mandatory, and the present situation is an acknowledgement by the designers that people actually want a simple and easy system to make their armies as they want inside a organized sistem with limitations.
Yes, the 5th ed system had issues. The solution wasn't to throw it all away and just let people take virtually any army they wanted, it was to allow for interesting troops and HQ to customize the core of the army, while still restricting the amount of certain units you could spam in each slot. Plus, the 5th ed system is significantly simpler and easier, so the new system is a failure if the designers actually wanted something simpler and easier.
8TH is a different system. It is not, objetively, a worse system. If you prefer the old system thats fine, but this dichotomy, presenting the old 5th edition FOC has more strategic, interesting, etc... is a falsehood. Maybe it was more interesting for YOU, but thats not an objetive value on itself.
I literally acknowledged that the new system being better or worse was up to individual preference. But having a stricter system that forces someone to actually decide what they want to bring does make it more strategic compared to a system where you can literally take any number of any type of unit you want with unlimited detachments. You may not place value on that, but I do.
Hmm. Thats not how I have seen it works. 90% of the tournaments and games out there use the GW recomendation of max 3 detachments in 2.000 point games. And yeah, you can have any number of units in the roles you want. I'm not a fan of spammy list, but I fail to see how having an army full of elites, or an army full of Fast Attacks, when the units in the game are balanced and troops have actually a place and role instead of being a tax (Tax, I hate paying it in real life and I hate paying it in warhammer. I want for all my units to have a role, not to be a tax for using a unit I actually want), is actually detrimental to the game.
Starcraft doesn't force you to build 10 zerglings for every Ultralisk you want to take. The system, being balanced, makes you want to take a good mix of units to respond to the opponent strategy. Of course in Warhammer we lack the hability to swap units mid game, but thats why TAC lists should be encouraged. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to take spammy list. They have his right and some spammy list can be totally cool and fine. The problem is when the spam is of a unbalanced unit. But the problem is not spamming per se. In a balanced enviroment, spamming will always be worse than a TAC list, unless you are spamming agaisnt a opponent that is spamming too, and you have spammed his counter. But thats a valid strategy and gambit that anybody should be able to make. How can you say that a more restrictive system that doesn't actually makes people chose what to bring but forces them to bring some things that they don't actually want because the FOC doesn't allow for more flexibility, is more strategic than a system that allows for a much bigger array of different armies and tactics?
Whats the problem with all bikers armies, or all tanks and artillery Imperial Guard Regiments, or a force of only Elite Space Marines? Veterans, with Terminators, Dreadnoughts, etc...? If the game is balanced those list have all his tactical weakness and strenghts. You don't need a system as restrictive as the old 5th FOC to have a functional game.
I literally acknowledged that the new system being better or worse was up to individual preference. But having a stricter system that forces someone to actually decide what they want to bring does make it more strategic compared to a system where you can literally take any number of any type of unit you want with unlimited detachments. You may not place value on that, but I do.
You currently have tons of restrictions. For each detachment you are binding yourself to certain units and these units cost points and you do not have an endless upply of points. All these restrictions still apply. I just feel like you are complaining about fringe cases like several Baneblades or 3 Wraith Knights in an army.
I'd also argue that more restrictions make things less strategic. The more options you have to choose from the more combinations you have compared to a restricted system where you are forced to stick to core units that limit both your choices and decisions. Would be fun to calculate the possible permutations between different editions.
Eldarsif wrote: I remember when people played a more restrictive codexes/games. Those were indeed the glory days. One could spam Wave Serpents, Scatter Bikes, Flying Croissants, and Wraiths to name a few. Ye olde days of Starcannons, how I miss thee.
I guess you are talking about 6th and/or 7th editions. I was not playing nor following the GW's things back then, but more and more i have the impression that GW destroyed 40k back then and we have now is a extinguished fire smoking and trying to gather the scattered pieces of it... Makes me sad.
The FOC kept things simple, and you could just spam that single OP unit as much as you wanted. These were the good old days where everyone was happy, full of joy, and just itching to have their units mowed down by whatever thing was in fashion.
Why can't we have nice things? Why can't we have a single FOC detachment games where we could easily just forfeit a game because we knew the bastard in front of us was wielding the flavor of the month that nothing could stand against? It gave us more time to paint!
This single faction spam also kept the flavor god damn flavorful! Everyone knows Necrons are just a bunch of flying Croissants and that Craftworlds are just their serpents and scatter lasers. The flavor, the lore, the history, was so rich with this beautiful setup. It was indeed the best timeline.
I have no idea what you are talking about as i said before.
That things were worse in the end of 5th/6th/7th, does not mean that they automatically are good right now because we are comparing with those disasters. Back in 3rd edition one of the most powerful list if i'm not mistaken was the Iron Warriors. That list was awful back then and a shot in the foot of the game, the fluff, etc... today, that list would be considered "fluffy" compared to the abominations we can see everywhere. That is the thing. That is just... It means that the game has go from bad to worse and worse and worse. And right now that the game is "different" from its recent incarnations, people is very happy not because 40k is a good game or it is balanced or it is a good representation of the fluff (which is not), but because its slightly better than the train wreck that were previous editions.
Although you might disagree with it, the point is to have fun.
Lol... What? Do you mean you cannot have fun if the game is balanced and restricted and have some proper rules and good game designing behind it? I'm sorry, but i fail to see how that is possible or how can it make any sense...
My point is that the game need a LOT more restrictions and guidance to make it more balanced, more fun and more accurate to its background. It is supposedly the point isn't it? To have fun REPRESENTING a battle or skirmish in the 40k universe. Right now in many games neither of those things are fulfilled... To simply have fun there are many many games much more fun and rewarding to play. If you want to play 40k is that you like in some degree the background and story of the 40k universe, because as i said before, there are many companies out there that makes much better games and much better miniatures. No?
Why people thinks that more restrictions = not fun game? I don't get it.
The game as has been a lot of editions and specially in this 8th, is not a tactical wargame or strategical wargame. Games are won or losed at the choosing army and making the list stages. How is it that possible?
In real wargames or the actual reality, you are a better tactician and better military leader if you can defeat the enemy with the scarce resources you have. Alexander the Great was a great general because he managed to defeat army after army of the Persian Empire that were larger than his army. Or Rommel, with very few resources in north africa... Or Julius Caesar conquering Gallia with a handful of men... Etc, etc.
In chess, the archeotypical wargame, both players have exactly the same resources, the movements of each piece is fixed, the "abilities" of each piece are fixed and known by each player... so in the end the better player is the one who usually wins.
In 40k as it is right now, it would be as if Rommel could have had a full army of king tigers and fallschirmjäger, or Alexander would had a full army of elite heavy infantry and cavalry... or better example as if in chess one player would have a full army of queens.
What's the point in those cases? Is it really "fun"? Or the enjoyment is only in one side of the table? In chess if i have a proper army and the other player have a full army of queens, it will not be very funny nor very fair, and it would kill the point of the game.
In 40k is exactly the same or worse. 40k is not a game made for competing or proving which one wins. The point of the game is that BOTH players have to have fun and the game should be a somewhat similar representation of one encounter in the 40k universe. So, if players cannot or are not able to do it (as it is repeatedly proved), the rules should be the founding layer to make it happens. As they are now, they simply fail loudly and miserably.
I really cannot believe that anyone can have fun playing against some (most!) of the lists that i saw in the "army list" subforum. To me it would be painful. They are the exactly literal same thing as the "Army of queens" for Chess... So better rules for 40k is not a crazy things to have. As i said by the examples, the games have to have restrictions and rules and balance to be fair, fun and that in the end, the better player could won. In 40k this is not the case. Is not the better player who wins, but the more unscrupulous one and the one who has more luck with dice.
So yes, the FOC would be a good starting point. It would need changes. It would need a proper balanced game as a foundation, and proper and balanced codexes using it. To address your concerns about units spamming and abusive units, the game should really be reduced in scale. Less models and higher point cost per model would make relatively easier to balance the units and make more difficult to spam the best ones. As well, it would be absolutely necessary to bring back the units restrictions, that is the 0-1, 0-2, "only one of this units in your army", that would serve as a method to restrict too powerful units. For example, back in 3-4th editions, obliterators were 0-1. That would end a lot of problems that powerful and unbalanced units could make, as well as allowing the players that really like the background and/or the models for that units to use them.
Internal balance in the units should be as well a measure to take to improve balance. For example, to avoid the spamming of 5 chaos sm or 5 tactical marines with plasma and lascannon so predominant in the 3rd edition, i would make the units entries much more restrictives and detailed, for example, in the tactical marines entry it should be a list of the combination of units allowed for that army (i don't know right now how, but it could be that for every identical squad, you pay double the points for the special and heavy weapons, or that you have to have a full squad after the first one to have a special weapon, etc...).
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter all what we discuss and argue here. It is a matter of GW being incompentent and unable to make a balanced game... Or worse, making it purposely unbalanced to sell more and more models. I'm starting to think that it is the latter, and that means that we will never have a good 40k game.
In real wargames or the actual reality, you are a better tactician and better military leader if you can defeat the enemy with the scarce resources you have. Alexander the Great was a great general because he managed to defeat army after army of the Persian Empire that were larger than his army. Or Rommel, with very few resources in north africa... Or Julius Caesar conquering Gallia with a handful of men... Etc, etc.
Except as you've noticed in real life you can have armies of varying discrepancy. Sometimes small armies of infantry will be facing an entire tank division for example.
Internal balance in the units should be as well a measure to take to improve balance. For example, to avoid the spamming of 5 chaos sm or 5 tactical marines with plasma and lascannon so predominant in the 3rd edition, i would make the units entries much more restrictives and detailed, for example, in the tactical marines entry it should be a list of the combination of units allowed for that army (i don't know right now how, but it could be that for every identical squad, you pay double the points for the special and heavy weapons, or that you have to have a full squad after the first one to have a special weapon, etc...).
I am honestly glad you aren't balancing, as you'd ruin my Slaanesh armies outright.
Lol... What? Do you mean you cannot have fun if the game is balanced and restricted and have some proper rules and good game designing behind it? I'm sorry, but i fail to see how that is possible or how can it make any sense...
My point is that the game need a LOT more restrictions and guidance to make it more balanced, more fun and more accurate to its background.
Where did I say anything I was against balance? I am against unnecessary restrictions, but balance I am all for. Please read my text before auto-replying.
My argument is that restrictions don't necesarily have anything to do with fun. The rules are fun, unless you want to imply that you don't play the rules. You are arguing that the game can't be balanced in the current state and you have no argument for that reasoning. Is it easier to balance more restricted games? Sure, just as it is easier to make a railshooter than an open-world game. The game would be super easy to balance if we just had Troop Units and HQ and nothing else. Just keep the game with bolter-only Tac Marines and a Bolter wielding Captain and you have the easiest game to balance ever. Doesn't automatically equate to fun even if you might love it that way.
There lies the problem. You have created an artificial goalpost where the game is best/most fun, and ultimately that's just your gut feeling. Hell, your idea of fun is a subjective personal opinion. Nothing wrong with that subjective personal opinion, but what you consider fun others might not find fun.
In regards to accurate background: What is your idea of accurate background? Again, you are creating an artificial goalpost where your goalpost is the right one.
As a personal opinion I am glad that the game is evolving and changing.
there are many companies out there that makes much better games and much better miniatures.
To quote the Dude: That's just like, your opinion, man. I personally love the models and many of the aesthetics that they offer. I also find 8th edition to be a refreshing change in an otherwise stale game. Revitalized my interest in 40k completely. Again, your idea of better games and better miniatures are subjective personal opinions.
Games are won or losed at the choosing army and making the list stages.
This has been a thing in every single edition of 40k(well, I can't speak for Rogue Trader since I started in 2nd edition).
In real wargames or the actual reality, you are a better tactician and better military leader if you can defeat the enemy with the scarce resources you have. Alexander the Great was a great general because he managed to defeat army after army of the Persian Empire that were larger than his army. Or Rommel, with very few resources in north africa... Or Julius Caesar conquering Gallia with a handful of men... Etc, etc.
Now I am not sure how you play Warhammer 40k, but we do use points and those are as you call it a "scarce" resource. Even then the slots are technically scarce as you can only do x amount of permutations with each detachment and those choices cost points. Also, this is a game and trying to impose realism on it(especially one that happens in the year 40.000) is kinda silly. I mean, if you want to play a long ass campaign where you go through pre-made war zones and have to refuel, rearm, and whatnot, by all means do that. There is nothing stopping you from doing just that.
It also feels like you'd be happier in Flames of War or something similar. Considering the background of the 40k and the evolution of the ruleset over the decades you must realize that this game will never provide what you seem to desiring.
In chess, the archeotypical wargame, both players have exactly the same resources, the movements of each piece is fixed, the "abilities" of each piece are fixed and known by each player... so in the end the better player is the one who usually wins.
Now, I am not sure you realize, but you kinda are arguing against your own point. Chess not only has the same resources, but both players have exactly the same units and their abilities are highly restricted. Do you want everyone to play exactly the same army as you? I mean, if you ask someone politely they might very well do that for you. Maybe Horus Heresy would be a good middle ground for what you want out of the game?
better example as if in chess one player would have a full army of queens. it will not be very funny nor very fair, and it would kill the point of the game.
Please do not try to continue making a comparison between chess and Warhammer 40k. These are entirely different beasts and comparing them is downright silly. Chess does not have terrain or varying point costs and last time I checked I can't buy an unassembled and unpainted Queen at my wargaming store.
I'd argue it would be kinda funny, but only for a short while. Regarding fair I assume the opponent would be allowed to have an army of only Queens themselves so it would be fair so your reasoning is flawed.
I am going to post two quotes where you are arguing against yourself:
In real wargames or the actual reality, you are a better tactician and better military leader if you can defeat the enemy with the scarce resources you have.
and
40k is not a game made for competing or proving which one wins.
Now to the next point.
The point of the game is that BOTH players have to have fun and the game should be a somewhat similar representation of one encounter in the 40k universe.
I am having fun playing 40k even when I am playing armies that haven't had a codex. Even when I lose I am having fun because I find it a fun game. If you are not having fun then maybe, just maybe, 40k is not a game for you? I do not mean any disrespect, but seeing how you have done nothing but complain about every single aspect of the game currently it feels like it's just not your cup of tea. I mean, I tried Warmahordes and had a lot of issues with it so I just stopped playing it. Do enjoy painting the Warmahordes models so I still have those around.
As they are now, they simply fail loudly and miserably.
To quote the Dude again: Well that's just like your opinion man. I personally feel they are doing their best job in decades.
I really cannot believe that anyone can have fun playing against some (most!) of the lists that i saw in the "army list" subforum. To me it would be painful.
I have seen many a varied list so I don't see where this is coming from. Again, if this is so painful then maybe 40k is not your type of game.
So better rules for 40k is not a crazy things to have.
Are we arguing for rules or are we arguing for a FoC at this point because it seems you are now arguing for the former. Can the whole ruleset see some modifications? Sure, I'd like to see cover improved a bit myself as I find it too binary right now. I'd also like to see -1 to hit on whole armies disappear personally.
As i said by the examples, the games have to have restrictions and rules and balance to be fair, fun and that in the end, the better player could won. In 40k this is not the case. Is not the better player who wins, but the more unscrupulous one and the one who has more luck with dice.
Seriously, play another game if you are so angry at having to use dices. Your perfect game already exists and you have been writing about it again and again. You want to play chess, got it. If you really want to play 40k Chess then I think it would be a grand idea to paint up some miniatures and use them as a chess pieces. Could be a very cool display piece on its own. Hell, I am tempted to do that myself now that I think about it!
Also, 40k has restrictions and rules, and they seem to be trying for balance(with varying results so far). This is 2/3 in 40ks favor.
So yes, the FOC would be a good starting point. It would need changes. It would need a proper balanced game as a foundation, and proper and balanced codexes using it. To address your concerns about units spamming and abusive units, the game should really be reduced in scale. Less models and higher point cost per model would make relatively easier to balance the units and make more difficult to spam the best ones. As well, it would be absolutely necessary to bring back the units restrictions, that is the 0-1, 0-2, "only one of this units in your army", that would serve as a method to restrict too powerful units. For example, back in 3-4th editions, obliterators were 0-1. That would end a lot of problems that powerful and unbalanced units could make, as well as allowing the players that really like the background and/or the models for that units to use them.
Now it feels like you just want to play 2nd edition Warhammer or even Warmahordes. Have you tried Warmahordes?
Internal balance in the units should be as well a measure to take to improve balance. For example, to avoid the spamming of 5 chaos sm or 5 tactical marines with plasma and lascannon so predominant in the 3rd edition, i would make the units entries much more restrictives and detailed, for example, in the tactical marines entry it should be a list of the combination of units allowed for that army (i don't know right now how, but it could be that for every identical squad, you pay double the points for the special and heavy weapons, or that you have to have a full squad after the first one to have a special weapon, etc...).
Now it feels like you want to play some Excel game. Have you tried EVE Online? Fantastic game. Seriously, with what you want to do with restrictions I see no fun at all. I'll be spending hours trying to go through whatever "if" and "elif" statements you seem to desire into the game. Already get enough of those at my day job. Jesus Murphy, I just want to have a fun game, not a scripting language for army building.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter all what we discuss and argue here. It is a matter of GW being incompentent and unable to make a balanced game...
Warhammer 40.000 is really not your game is it? I mean, that's fine, there are ton of other games on the market. However, I think you'll find yourself miffed very quickly when you realize that many of these games have many of the same issues as Warhammer, and one of the reasons is that these games are expansive. That is, new units and rules are added in yearly which makes the game highly mutable. This makes the games very hard to balance and get right although I find GW be doing a much better job than in the previous editions.
The only game that would satisfy all your needs is chess. Why aren't you playing Chess? This is an honest to god question. Chess has literally everything you want. I would also recommend Go. Go is a fantastic game.
Surely even in a game of chess vs a guy who had nothing but queens, all you would need is a balanced point system to have a fair game. Want to spam queens? 100ppm. Pawns?20ppm. Now have a 500 point game and watch 5 queens try to hold back the tide of 25 pawns.Or, even better, do the same in a 1000 point game
IMO the same concept applies to 40k. Spam only becomes a problem when units are undercosted or if a stratagem/psychic power becomes too exploitable (in my experience).
How are all you people still complaining this is the best edition GW has given us in decades. Once all the codexs are released aside from the power creep that's going on this the edition is the tits.
Why people thinks that more restrictions = not fun game? I don't get it.
Because I want to be able to play with models I actually like, not forced to bring some specific things dictated by some chart.
Removal of the allies would be one thing that would seriously make me consider quitting the game.
Once again that's poor internal balance being the issue, not the soup.
No, he's saying he wants you bring models he likes not models dictated by some tax of a FOC. Substitute internet flowchart for printed flowchart.
And my two cents on this is HECK NO! I like the freedom of the current Detachments, I like the armies it produces and I see and I never, ever, want the old FoC to be mandated again.
Why people thinks that more restrictions = not fun game? I don't get it.
Because I want to be able to play with models I actually like, not forced to bring some specific things dictated by some chart.
Removal of the allies would be one thing that would seriously make me consider quitting the game.
Once again that's poor internal balance being the issue, not the soup.
No, he's saying he wants you bring models he likes not models dictated by some tax of a FOC. Substitute internet flowchart for printed flowchart.
And my two cents on this is HECK NO! I like the freedom of the current Detachments, I like the armies it produces and I see and I never, ever, want the old FoC to be mandated again.
I was more reinforcing his point, though I probably could've worded the post better to reflect that.
Why people thinks that more restrictions = not fun game? I don't get it.
Because I want to be able to play with models I actually like, not forced to bring some specific things dictated by some chart.
Removal of the allies would be one thing that would seriously make me consider quitting the game.
Once again that's poor internal balance being the issue, not the soup.
No, he's saying he wants you bring models he likes not models dictated by some tax of a FOC. Substitute internet flowchart for printed flowchart.
And my two cents on this is HECK NO! I like the freedom of the current Detachments, I like the armies it produces and I see and I never, ever, want the old FoC to be mandated again.
I was more reinforcing his point, though I probably could've worded the post better to reflect that.
First, if you want o bring whatever you want you already can. It's called Open and Narrative Play. Specifically, Open lets you play however you want. That means you can litterally transplant ALL the rules of matched over to open and then change the one thing you don't like to be how you do like. Like letting you bring an Ork detachment with Tyranids because they have the models you like.
Second, a more restrictive list building does improve the game because it forces you to make choices that are interesting. It's like playing classic doom with god mode, infinite guns, and infinite ammo vs regular old doom. Yeah, it's fun once in awhile to go nuts shooting BFGs non stop. But it's actually way more interesting to have to play with the restrictions.
Finally, don't bring back the old FoC. Adopted the 30k FoC.
Their FoC charts are great. Allow <Chapter> <Regiment> <Hive Fleet> keywords to open up some options for which units go into which slots. Like a pure <Ravenwing> detachment could take bikers as troops. Do you make your main FoC ravenwing or an ally? Don't care. The option is neat. Make Jormungandr able to take Raveners are troops. LoWs cannot make up more than 25% of your army and no LoW below 2k points.
A limiting FoC isn't a bad thing especially when it comes with flexibility built into it.
Lance845 wrote: First, if you want o bring whatever you want you already can. It's called Open and Narrative Play. Specifically, Open lets you play however you want. That means you can litterally transplant ALL the rules of matched over to open and then change the one thing you don't like to be how you do like. Like letting you bring an Ork detachment with Tyranids because they have the models you like.
Second, a more restrictive list building does improve the game because it forces you to make choices that are interesting. It's like playing classic doom with god mode, infinite guns, and infinite ammo vs regular old doom. Yeah, it's fun once in awhile to go nuts shooting BFGs non stop. But it's actually way more interesting to have to play with the restrictions.
Finally, don't bring back the old FoC. Adopted the 30k FoC.
Their FoC charts are great. Allow <Chapter> <Regiment> <Hive Fleet> keywords to open up some options for which units go into which slots. Like a pure <Ravenwing> detachment could take bikers as troops. Do you make your main FoC ravenwing or an ally? Don't care. The option is neat. Make Jormungandr able to take Raveners are troops. LoWs cannot make up more than 25% of your army and no LoW below 2k points.
A limiting FoC isn't a bad thing especially when it comes with flexibility built into it.
Yeah except Open and Narrative aren't what tournaments use and some of us like to compete. My favorite armies only stand a chance in tournament settings being spam happy (Grey Knights, Custodes, Imperial Knights). A limiting FoC just throws them out the window. Even if you keywords to open up changes you will either not open enough changes or make it so permissive as to wind us up back where we are now in effect. So might as well stay where we are now.
The problems in 8th aren't the FoC's. That's just people who PREFER to see certain unit types being mad other players use different ones. The problems are imbalances of individual units and in pricing, i.e. survivability is priced too highly in infantry, psychic access is overcosted for most units, e.t.c.
Why is people saying that theres no restrictions? Dont you play with points and max 3 detachmentsli ke damm GW recomends at 2000p? How is 8th FOC like Doom god-mode? Thats a strawmen.
I love troops. I always spam troops. I wouldnt force anyone to use them if he or she doesnt want it.
I dont understand how people can critize 8th detachments and then say that HQ should allow X units to become troops. That not only makes troops obsolete, is just a worse version of 8th. You are creating a combukated sistem of exceptions, when the 8th sistem allready allow for those thematic armies to all factions, without making troops obsolete.
In 8th troops have actually a place and tactical role ffs!
Galas wrote:And if units are balanced and have tactical roles instead of some units being just a tax, wats the problem with that? They are limited by points.
There isn't.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Lance845 wrote: I didnt say it was like doom god mode. I used it as an example for how restrictions build more interesting game play.
In 8th you dont need troops at all. The focs literally let you build any list you want with any mix of model you want. The only cost is cp efficiency.
The example you use doesn't work though because it isn't like the demons are boosted at all from that. The Demons don't get God mode.
Now if you're on an insanity difficulty, then it becomes interesting to get that much ammo and armor as they swarm upon you.
Your all running away with the analogy instead of hearing the point.
The point is that someone argued that all they want is to bring whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, and that restrictions don't make the game any better.
Wrong.
Restrictions are what creates interesting choice. And interesting choice makes for better game play. In 7th (when I started playing the game) I loved the 2k point level because I could really flesh out my lists. I could bring everything I wanted with all the bells and whistles. I could make my list fully succeed at several different aspects. The longer I played the more I liked 1500-1250. Because I COULDN"T bring all the wargear options I wanted. I had to look for ways to trim fat. I had to scrape off a few models here drop these little perks there and because those bells and whistles were missing I had to compensate more in the game itself.
Restrictions made me have to choose. Those choices made my list building more interesting and in turn made me up my game on the table.
It's not a bad thing to have restrictions. And fully opened unrestrained list building like say.... AoS on release, can be incredibly detrimental.
Maybe I am reading the wrong rulebook, but there are quite explicit rules about army building in regards to points and how detachment are formed. In no way can I build "whatever" list I want. What 8th edition has brought us is more options, but that does not mean in it is unrestricted at all. Options are generally considered good.
A limiting FoC isn't a bad thing especially when it comes with flexibility built into it.
That's what they did. The FoC are limited(there is literally a list of FoCs you can use. They just called it detachments instead). They just built it so that it gives you the flexibility you just mentioned. Also, with how CP are working now it can be quite detrimental to sacrifice CP although I will admit that this only applies to Codex armies and not Index armies.
In the end this always comes down to several points:
1. Some people want a Troop slot heavy game even if this slot is in essence illusory as developers will side step that requirement by having slot switching shenanigans. Only thing the designers did was stop lying to you about specific restrictions and instead be completely honest about them.
2. The main complaint is not about the FoC, but that some units are currently just badly balanced and people will spam them. This is a problem since the game was released decades ago. Limiting the FoC will not mean you are going to see less Dark Reapers because how many people run of them would technically fit into the old FoC. At best it would mean that around 150 points would go into a Troop Tax to run the rest of the stuff. Again, it is an illusion of restriction rather than actual restrictions.
3. The person in question just really wants to play something completely different from 40k.
I think the post 5th edition army building paradigm has created more problems than it solved, but the cat's out of the bag. Then again, I also wouldn't complain if flyers and superheavies were removed from standard games of 40k.
So much this! I still think it is strange to see either outside of an apocalypse game.
I think the post 5th edition army building paradigm has created more problems than it solved, but the cat's out of the bag. Then again, I also wouldn't complain if flyers and superheavies were removed from standard games of 40k.
So much this! I still think it is strange to see either outside of an apocalypse game.
I don't disagree from a fluff standpoint, but those models aren't really tearing up the game like they once did.
I honestly think this was directed to address competitors games, i.e. Warmahordes large scale models, because when they allowed SH starting in 6th it was about that same time. People love their large models, for good reason, but I don't think these are exactly breaking the game anymore.
Irbis wrote: Isn't the solution very simple? Just restrict all CPs and stratagems to their own detachments only, *unless* the detachments share same book *and* subfaction. There, no more CP farms, you can bring soup if you want, but single book will have advantage of more CP flexibility, while the relaxed army construction is kept for fluffy players...
I actually really like this. Does anyone have an argument against it?
It doesn't break IGs back if they're the same regiment, but they can be sorted in other ways.
Lance845 wrote: First, if you want o bring whatever you want you already can. It's called Open and Narrative Play. Specifically, Open lets you play however you want. That means you can litterally transplant ALL the rules of matched over to open and then change the one thing you don't like to be how you do like. Like letting you bring an Ork detachment with Tyranids because they have the models you like.
And if you want, you can already agree to play matched with just one batallion detachment.
Second, a more restrictive list building does improve the game because it forces you to make choices that are interesting. It's like playing classic doom with god mode, infinite guns, and infinite ammo vs regular old doom. Yeah, it's fun once in awhile to go nuts shooting BFGs non stop. But it's actually way more interesting to have to play with the restrictions.
There are restrictions, just not as much as you'd like. Things cost points, you can't bring everything, and you need to make pure detachments to keep abilities, and most abilities won't work outside the subfaction. The most abusive aspects of allies were killed in the 8th. Allies are fine now. They're a good way to make more diverse armies. If some specific units always get spammed, then it is issue with those units being too good, not with the ally rules themselves.
I get the feeling that some folks are really just upset about "souping" as opposed to the detachments. Running a Vanguard and Outrider detachment of Dark Angels lets you have a Deathwing/Ravenwing force, but it will be short on those vital CPs. I don't see very much salt about multiple detachments. The salt I see about "spam" could just as easily apply to the old FOC.
Putting restrictions on the keyword system is one thing, but going back to the old FOC would be a huge step back in terms.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I get the feeling that some folks are really just upset about "souping" as opposed to the detachments. Running a Vanguard and Outrider detachment of Dark Angels lets you have a Deathwing/Ravenwing force, but it will be short on those vital CPs. I don't see very much salt about multiple detachments. The salt I see about "spam" could just as easily apply to the old FOC.
Putting restrictions on the keyword system is one thing, but going back to the old FOC would be a huge step back in terms.
Sure. It is about killing allies, because some people want everybody to play boring mono faction armies.
Being able to mix different factions in one army is one of the best things about the game.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I get the feeling that some folks are really just upset about "souping" as opposed to the detachments. Running a Vanguard and Outrider detachment of Dark Angels lets you have a Deathwing/Ravenwing force, but it will be short on those vital CPs. I don't see very much salt about multiple detachments. The salt I see about "spam" could just as easily apply to the old FOC.
Putting restrictions on the keyword system is one thing, but going back to the old FOC would be a huge step back in terms.
Sure. It is about killing allies, because some people want everybody to play boring mono faction armies.
Being able to mix different factions in one army is one of the best things about the game.
Its not the mixing of factions thats the issue.
Its the fact you can take 1 or 2 "power" models from a faction, which then give you access to strategems that you can use on out of faction detachments, and then take 1 or 2 power models from ANOTHER faction to do the same damn thing. Its one thing to take some IG to supplement the firepower from your ultramarines, its another to allow game breaking combos to exist and "soup" things just because.
The thing is you allow people to break the game un-intentionally by utilizing keywords, and keywords themselves are pretty iffy and vague at times. 6th at least straight out told you who could ally with who, though some of the combos were stupid (Necrons and Blood Angels, for example) and not at all fluffy.
The other issue is the game as it is, currently, awards you to soup over mono-faction. Its not that I hate soup, I don't mind seeing allied forces, I mind when people do it for the express purpose of rules abuse. Shouldn't factions that are forced to be mono-faction (Tyranids currently) have a chance? Also it pretty much forces you to try and stack CP to get powerful strategems, rather than build a powerful force for strategems to supplement with one turn buffs, or cool tricks. Why couldn't we, ya know, have these built into specific units or factions instead? For example, Alpha Legion chapters can infiltrate 1 or 2 Non Marked infantry units at the end of their first turn? Instead we have infiltrating alpha legion berzerkers....
We are just in a weird spot with the game, where people want fun and interesting games, but rules that were mean't to be "simple and easy to play" have turned abusive, and rules lawyers have more ammo than ever to do some wonky stuff that shouldn't be legal (like horrors splitting making more poxwalkers...)
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I get the feeling that some folks are really just upset about "souping" as opposed to the detachments. Running a Vanguard and Outrider detachment of Dark Angels lets you have a Deathwing/Ravenwing force, but it will be short on those vital CPs. I don't see very much salt about multiple detachments. The salt I see about "spam" could just as easily apply to the old FOC.
Putting restrictions on the keyword system is one thing, but going back to the old FOC would be a huge step back in terms.
Sure. It is about killing allies, because some people want everybody to play boring mono faction armies.
Being able to mix different factions in one army is one of the best things about the game.
Its not the mixing of factions thats the issue.
Its the fact you can take 1 or 2 "power" models from a faction, which then give you access to strategems that you can use on out of faction detachments, and then take 1 or 2 power models from ANOTHER faction to do the same damn thing. Its one thing to take some IG to supplement the firepower from your ultramarines, its another to allow game breaking combos to exist and "soup" things just because.
The thing is you allow people to break the game un-intentionally by utilizing keywords, and keywords themselves are pretty iffy and vague at times. 6th at least straight out told you who could ally with who, though some of the combos were stupid (Necrons and Blood Angels, for example) and not at all fluffy.
The other issue is the game as it is, currently, awards you to soup over mono-faction. Its not that I hate soup, I don't mind seeing allied forces, I mind when people do it for the express purpose of rules abuse. Shouldn't factions that are forced to be mono-faction (Tyranids currently) have a chance? Also it pretty much forces you to try and stack CP to get powerful strategems, rather than build a powerful force for strategems to supplement with one turn buffs, or cool tricks. Why couldn't we, ya know, have these built into specific units or factions instead? For example, Alpha Legion chapters can infiltrate 1 or 2 Non Marked infantry units at the end of their first turn? Instead we have infiltrating alpha legion berzerkers....
We are just in a weird spot with the game, where people want fun and interesting games, but rules that were mean't to be "simple and easy to play" have turned abusive, and rules lawyers have more ammo than ever to do some wonky stuff that shouldn't be legal (like horrors splitting making more poxwalkers...)
For one you can't take 1-2 power unit and unlock stratagems, you need a pure detachment.
Tyranids are not forced mono-faction. They can take GSC who can take IG.
And people keep bringing up souping for stratagems to use on other detachments but where is this happening? Only Ynnari does this. The Daemon stuff got Faq'ed.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I get the feeling that some folks are really just upset about "souping" as opposed to the detachments. Running a Vanguard and Outrider detachment of Dark Angels lets you have a Deathwing/Ravenwing force, but it will be short on those vital CPs. I don't see very much salt about multiple detachments. The salt I see about "spam" could just as easily apply to the old FOC.
Putting restrictions on the keyword system is one thing, but going back to the old FOC would be a huge step back in terms.
Sure. It is about killing allies, because some people want everybody to play boring mono faction armies.
Being able to mix different factions in one army is one of the best things about the game.
Its not the mixing of factions thats the issue.
Its the fact you can take 1 or 2 "power" models from a faction, which then give you access to strategems that you can use on out of faction detachments, and then take 1 or 2 power models from ANOTHER faction to do the same damn thing. Its one thing to take some IG to supplement the firepower from your ultramarines, its another to allow game breaking combos to exist and "soup" things just because.
The thing is you allow people to break the game un-intentionally by utilizing keywords, and keywords themselves are pretty iffy and vague at times. 6th at least straight out told you who could ally with who, though some of the combos were stupid (Necrons and Blood Angels, for example) and not at all fluffy.
The other issue is the game as it is, currently, awards you to soup over mono-faction. Its not that I hate soup, I don't mind seeing allied forces, I mind when people do it for the express purpose of rules abuse. Shouldn't factions that are forced to be mono-faction (Tyranids currently) have a chance? Also it pretty much forces you to try and stack CP to get powerful strategems, rather than build a powerful force for strategems to supplement with one turn buffs, or cool tricks. Why couldn't we, ya know, have these built into specific units or factions instead? For example, Alpha Legion chapters can infiltrate 1 or 2 Non Marked infantry units at the end of their first turn? Instead we have infiltrating alpha legion berzerkers....
We are just in a weird spot with the game, where people want fun and interesting games, but rules that were mean't to be "simple and easy to play" have turned abusive, and rules lawyers have more ammo than ever to do some wonky stuff that shouldn't be legal (like horrors splitting making more poxwalkers...)
For one you can't take 1-2 power unit and unlock stratagems, you need a pure detachment.
Tyranids are not forced mono-faction. They can take GSC who can take IG.
And people keep bringing up souping for stratagems to use on other detachments but where is this happening? Only Ynnari does this. The Daemon stuff got Faq'ed.
Yes, a cheap HQ + troop, etc.Its mainly abused by innari, but chaos was guilty of it too. Yes, the Demon one got FAQ'd, but for example, I can use the strategem to change one sorcerers spell to any spell and give Mortarion Warptime, for example.
GSC doesn't really compliment Tyranids, which is why you probably don't see it, they are more powerful as a mono-faction; but looking at ITC standings, only one army that was Mono ( a blood angels army) even made it to the top 8. People defend soup because they want to run IG with their marines, or whatever, and thats cool, that makes the game fun. But you can't argue that people aren't taking advantage of souping to bend or break rules, or finding wonky combo's that were a huge oversight.
Ordana wrote: People are souping because it is more powerful then mono and because Elite armies lack bodies and CP they need to compete.
Removing soup just makes the strong codexes stronger and strangles the field of diversity. (even if that diversity is a dozen variants of X + IG)
Many of the suggestions of this thread are ways to soup up mono versus soup, for example, you can only use strategems from the main detachments codex (So if I have a battalion of BA + detachments of IG and SM, then I can only use BA strategems), or bolstering CP values for playing mono-armies (such as 2 bonus CP for no detachments).
Currently the field of diversity is IG + detachment allies, Innari weirdness, and spam-a-lamb Chaos when your at events... people just wanna see unique armies that are interesting to see and field, and not play against the next netdeck spamathon someone concocted... what are we, magic the gathering?
Ordana wrote: People are souping because it is more powerful then mono and because Elite armies lack bodies and CP they need to compete.
Removing soup just makes the strong codexes stronger and strangles the field of diversity. (even if that diversity is a dozen variants of X + IG)
Many of the suggestions of this thread are ways to soup up mono versus soup, for example, you can only use strategems from the main detachments codex (So if I have a battalion of BA + detachments of IG and SM, then I can only use BA strategems), or bolstering CP values for playing mono-armies (such as 2 bonus CP for no detachments).
Currently the field of diversity is IG + detachment allies, Innari weirdness, and spam-a-lamb Chaos when your at events... people just wanna see unique armies that are interesting to see and field, and not play against the next netdeck spamathon someone concocted... what are we, magic the gathering?
Your at a tournament, your going to see a lot of netlists.
What needs to happen in matched play, if it has not been said before (I only read two pages) is that bringing a "pure" army should net you extra command points. This solution is not perfect as some codex's are far more complete than others and can be better poised to take advantage of this bonus. But in the end I think pure forces should carry a certain advantage to cherry picking the best units out of a entire faction. Nothing game breaking but lets say 3 extra CP for a pure force.
Ordana wrote: People are souping because it is more powerful then mono and because Elite armies lack bodies and CP they need to compete.
Removing soup just makes the strong codexes stronger and strangles the field of diversity. (even if that diversity is a dozen variants of X + IG)
Many of the suggestions of this thread are ways to soup up mono versus soup, for example, you can only use strategems from the main detachments codex (So if I have a battalion of BA + detachments of IG and SM, then I can only use BA strategems), or bolstering CP values for playing mono-armies (such as 2 bonus CP for no detachments).
Currently the field of diversity is IG + detachment allies, Innari weirdness, and spam-a-lamb Chaos when your at events... people just wanna see unique armies that are interesting to see and field, and not play against the next netdeck spamathon someone concocted... what are we, magic the gathering?
Thats like saying you dont want to see Fox in a smash bros brawl tournament.
Actualy barring eldar and dark reaper an SS spam i believe the high competitive scene has great variety for what high competitive scenes of any game normally have.
The variety is even better when you are playing at regionsl, local, less netlisting meta.
Ordana wrote: People are souping because it is more powerful then mono and because Elite armies lack bodies and CP they need to compete.
Removing soup just makes the strong codexes stronger and strangles the field of diversity. (even if that diversity is a dozen variants of X + IG)
Many of the suggestions of this thread are ways to soup up mono versus soup, for example, you can only use strategems from the main detachments codex (So if I have a battalion of BA + detachments of IG and SM, then I can only use BA strategems), or bolstering CP values for playing mono-armies (such as 2 bonus CP for no detachments).
Currently the field of diversity is IG + detachment allies, Innari weirdness, and spam-a-lamb Chaos when your at events... people just wanna see unique armies that are interesting to see and field, and not play against the next netdeck spamathon someone concocted... what are we, magic the gathering?
Thats like saying you dont want to see Fox in a smash bros brawl tournament.
Actualy barring eldar and dark reaper an SS spam i believe the high competitive scene has great variety for what high competitive scenes of any game normally have.
The variety is even better when you are playing at regionsl, local, less netlisting meta.
The problem I see with this comparison is that Smash people play who they are best with, but in Brawl Fox is broken. But looking at the Wii U SB people play a wide variety of characters, and theres not really a "best", just who your best WITH. Smash is a 1v1 game, you can only take one character, so (barring Melee and Brawl who have OP broken chars) why not take who your best with?
In Warhammer you are given a huge variety of units and setups. Yes, naturally in a competitive game, people gravitate to those "powerful" models that give them the edge. But when your given so many options, why does it have to be this way? Its not like Magic the Gathering where you have to have crappy common cards to fill packs, and we don't have a finite number of combinations that "work". Its just in tabletop some lists work better than others, and thats the beauty of working out the kinks of your list.
The issue is that when you have a few models that skew the meta this way, its not healthy. Yes, I agree that once you get into regional matches, the variety is much more diversified. As many have stated, "national meta is not the meta in and of itself!" because you still have people who want Orcs to work, or Necrons to have a chance, or try and win with their mono-Death Guard army. My issue doesn't lie with any of this. Its that people are spamming a single model ad-infinitum because they have no way around it to win in a "competitive" match, and that people who want to build honest lists with variety and trying new stuff, are pigeonholed by these overpowered models and lists into taking their "OP broken stuff".
What caused this is not a slight to me, personally, but I do love people who have unique lists that try and take it to the top. 5th edition this forum was filled with people who took interesting lists, like Reecius, JY2, and others, and made them work despite the odds. They could pilot these creations and topple lists that seemed unbeatable.
But now? How do you combat Dark Reapers that make every other model a joke? How many lists have an honest chance against 8 Plagueburst Crawlers that auto-hit, have 12 wounds, and toughness 8? Stuff like this is where my concern comes from. This and the fact that many allied detachments are just used for access to specific things generally, such as Death Guard taking CSM detachments for Warptime.
GSC doesn't really compliment Tyranids, which is why you probably don't see it, they are more powerful as a mono-faction; but looking at ITC standings, only one army that was Mono ( a blood angels army) even made it to the top 8. People defend soup because they want to run IG with their marines, or whatever, and thats cool, that makes the game fun. But you can't argue that people aren't taking advantage of souping to bend or break rules, or finding wonky combo's that were a huge oversight.
GSC with Tyranids did better at LVO than mono-GSC or mono-Tyranids fwiw. They seem to compliment each other fine.
As for problems in Chaos that were FAQ'd vs problems with Eldar that haven't been.... well, that's like saying the solution to electrical fires is to go back to candles...
GSC doesn't really compliment Tyranids, which is why you probably don't see it, they are more powerful as a mono-faction; but looking at ITC standings, only one army that was Mono ( a blood angels army) even made it to the top 8. People defend soup because they want to run IG with their marines, or whatever, and thats cool, that makes the game fun. But you can't argue that people aren't taking advantage of souping to bend or break rules, or finding wonky combo's that were a huge oversight.
GSC with Tyranids did better at LVO than mono-GSC or mono-Tyranids fwiw. They seem to compliment each other fine.
As for problems in Chaos that were FAQ'd vs problems with Eldar that haven't been.... well, that's like saying the solution to electrical fires is to go back to candles...
I like that they are fixing these issues earlier than they once did. And thanks for the heads up with Nids.
I did like the old FoC, but I think it would need updating even if I wanted it back.
However, the current detachment system really does seem like an awful mess. I think part of the problem is with GW building on shoddy foundations. Classifying units into HQ, Troops etc. made sense back with the old rules. now, though, every unit has a ridiculous pile of keywords. You've got keywords to tell you the unit type (Character, Jetbike etc.) that matters in-game, you've got keywords to tell you the unit type (HQ, Troop etc.) that only matters for list-building, you've got keywords for factions, you've got keywords for subfactions, you've got keywords for subsubfactions. It's like it was designed by some sort of hybrid of man and spreadsheet.
And then you've got the detachments themselves. You've got a detachment that's for taking a lot of troops, you've got a detachment that's for taking a lot of HQ, you've got detachment each for taking a lot of FA, HS or Elites, you've got a detachment for taking one of anything, you've got a detachment for taking a lot of everything. Again, it just seems like a right mess.
Might it not make more sense to scrap the HQ, Troop, FA etc. labels entirely, and instead give each unit a value for how many can be taken in an army? The restriction could either be absolute or per 500pts or 1000pts, depending on whether you want them to scale. Troops would be defined by a lack of restriction on how many you can take. In terms of HQs, maybe say that an army needs one character per 500pts or something?
You'd need to change or remove the ally system for this, but otherwise it would seem far more in line with both the dataslate idea and also the reduced restrictions on army composition.
Might it not make more sense to scrap the HQ, Troop, FA etc. labels entirely, and instead give each unit a value for how many can be taken in an army?
That's kinda what they do in Warmahordes(or did in the edition I played). You have unique units which are the heroes. Then you have units that can be used at will, and then there were the heavy hitters that were limited per army.
Might it not make more sense to scrap the HQ, Troop, FA etc. labels entirely, and instead give each unit a value for how many can be taken in an army?
That's kinda what they do in Warmahordes(or did in the edition I played). You have unique units which are the heroes. Then you have units that can be used at will, and then there were the heavy hitters that were limited per army.
Actually thats a good point, I do remember that from Warmahordes.
Honestly labels do very little anymore for an army when you can take 6 of really any slot. Saying that a Battalion requires "at least 5 units" is no different than saying 2 HQ and 3 troops.
For example, place a limit of 2 Imperial Knights per detachment, or 6 units of Dark Eldar Warriors per detachment, etc. You could even divide a codex based on how many of a unit you can take, a limit the sizes of detachments based on how "big" the army should be, like a Patrol needs to have 1 Character + 2 units. Character could be any solo model that would "lead" the detachment.
Might it not make more sense to scrap the HQ, Troop, FA etc. labels entirely, and instead give each unit a value for how many can be taken in an army?
That's kinda what they do in Warmahordes(or did in the edition I played). You have unique units which are the heroes. Then you have units that can be used at will, and then there were the heavy hitters that were limited per army.
Actually thats a good point, I do remember that from Warmahordes.
Honestly labels do very little anymore for an army when you can take 6 of really any slot. Saying that a Battalion requires "at least 5 units" is no different than saying 2 HQ and 3 troops.
For example, place a limit of 2 Imperial Knights per detachment, or 6 units of Dark Eldar Warriors per detachment, etc. You could even divide a codex based on how many of a unit you can take, a limit the sizes of detachments based on how "big" the army should be, like a Patrol needs to have 1 Character + 2 units. Character could be any solo model that would "lead" the detachment.
Interesting thought.
The problem comes with the hypothetical scalability. Limiting units this way makes sense if we can guarantee a fixed point size of games(say 1500-2000), but becomes an issue if you play larger games. This also ignores the fact that game designers will just bypass this rule by saying: Well, you can only have two units of Imperial Knights, but each unit can have dozen Imperial Knights!
This is why I have mentioned that it is good to keep in mind that over the past decades the designers have been trying to expand the amount of units you can use(ie. how many Imperial Knights in an army or whatever) rather than limit and considering the fact that they are also in the business of selling models it is quite advantageous for them to keep things limitless.
AoS actually has an interesting approach where they explicitly state number of heroes and battlelines you need to cover at each point range.
If you make it a limit per detachment it works out okay as long as you scale your detachments by game size correctly.
That was even Warmachine's solution to that issue, but their casters served the role of detachments. The problem ended up being that casters don't mix well at all and nobody really wanted the game to scale up anyway, so it became an unused feature that was more or less dropped.
Might it not make more sense to scrap the HQ, Troop, FA etc. labels entirely, and instead give each unit a value for how many can be taken in an army?
That's kinda what they do in Warmahordes(or did in the edition I played). You have unique units which are the heroes. Then you have units that can be used at will, and then there were the heavy hitters that were limited per army.
Indeed. I had the Warmahordes system in mind when I suggested this.
I'm always a little surprised 40k doesn't have any sort of limit on how many times you can take something. I mean, I get why; that's a limit on how many of something people are willing to buy, but it seems like the only thing that really prevents you from identifying the best thing and taking as many of that as you can.
I think the strength of named characters this edition helps with that a lot. If you rely on their buff for something to work, you're not going to be able to take an entire army of that thing (hopefully....). Relics seem to be a generic variation of the same idea and detachments seem to help with this as well. I've long felt the game really only supports 800ish points of unique army composition. 3 detachments seem to make that an actual reality.
LunarSol wrote: I'm always a little surprised 40k doesn't have any sort of limit on how many times you can take something. I mean, I get why; that's a limit on how many of something people are willing to buy, but it seems like the only thing that really prevents you from identifying the best thing and taking as many of that as you can.
I think the strength of named characters this edition helps with that a lot. If you rely on their buff for something to work, you're not going to be able to take an entire army of that thing (hopefully....). Relics seem to be a generic variation of the same idea and detachments seem to help with this as well. I've long felt the game really only supports 800ish points of unique army composition. 3 detachments seem to make that an actual reality.
Oddly enough, in the last we’ve had FW consistently try to balance things by restricting the number of FW units you can take in regular games. We had relic vehicles that could only be taken as one-offs, LOWs that had to be a certain % of your points, special prerequisites for certain models like the grot mega-tank, and just plain limits to how many of a unit you can put in a detachment. While GW started strict and relaxed their limits in each army’s codex, FW started with GW’s relaxed restrictions and moved towards limits.
Might it not make more sense to scrap the HQ, Troop, FA etc. labels entirely, and instead give each unit a value for how many can be taken in an army?
That's kinda what they do in Warmahordes(or did in the edition I played). You have unique units which are the heroes. Then you have units that can be used at will, and then there were the heavy hitters that were limited per army.
Actually thats a good point, I do remember that from Warmahordes.
Honestly labels do very little anymore for an army when you can take 6 of really any slot. Saying that a Battalion requires "at least 5 units" is no different than saying 2 HQ and 3 troops.
For example, place a limit of 2 Imperial Knights per detachment, or 6 units of Dark Eldar Warriors per detachment, etc. You could even divide a codex based on how many of a unit you can take, a limit the sizes of detachments based on how "big" the army should be, like a Patrol needs to have 1 Character + 2 units. Character could be any solo model that would "lead" the detachment.
Interesting thought.
The problem comes with the hypothetical scalability. Limiting units this way makes sense if we can guarantee a fixed point size of games(say 1500-2000), but becomes an issue if you play larger games. This also ignores the fact that game designers will just bypass this rule by saying: Well, you can only have two units of Imperial Knights, but each unit can have dozen Imperial Knights!
This is why I have mentioned that it is good to keep in mind that over the past decades the designers have been trying to expand the amount of units you can use(ie. how many Imperial Knights in an army or whatever) rather than limit and considering the fact that they are also in the business of selling models it is quite advantageous for them to keep things limitless.
AoS actually has an interesting approach where they explicitly state number of heroes and battlelines you need to cover at each point range.
This is true, which was why most warmahorde games were around 50 points, 75 tops (at 100 it became... extremely unwieldly). It seems like 40k, more or less, is around 1500-2k for a typical game. Larger games, 3k+, are more rare, but you could have their own game type like they currently do; no game will EVER be balanced when its that massive, so those are always a way to drop all the models you own and play a game. Warmahordes was also extremely, extremely competitive, but the casters themselves limited the lists and made them "fluffy"; it was pretty cool that one warcaster made a unit that sucked normally into a powerhouse.
Anyway, yes, they would definitely have to keep those limits in mind. There wouldn't be anymore "units of tanks" and things if you wanted to keep it balanced this way, of course, points go a long way toward this balance as well.
I actually liked the Warmahordes gameplay and list building, I just hated the community as a whole and their attitude toward one another. Even a friendly game was extremely rules lawyer-y and games came down to 1/4' arguments at times, lol.
"
I actually liked the Warmahordes gameplay and list building, I just hated the community as a whole and their attitude toward one another. Even a friendly game was extremely rules lawyer-y and games came down to 1/4' arguments at times, lol.
"
You should try MK3 if you haven't. Premeasuring has made it a lot easier to play clean and precise without creating measurement arguments.
I actually liked the Warmahordes gameplay and list building, I just hated the community as a whole and their attitude toward one another. Even a friendly game was extremely rules lawyer-y and games came down to 1/4' arguments at times, lol.
"
You should try MK3 if you haven't. Premeasuring has made it a lot easier to play clean and precise without creating measurement arguments.
Hmmm, might give it a shot then. The lack of premeasuring drove me nuts and added too much rules lawyering for me.
I actually liked the Warmahordes gameplay and list building, I just hated the community as a whole and their attitude toward one another. Even a friendly game was extremely rules lawyer-y and games came down to 1/4' arguments at times, lol.
"
You should try MK3 if you haven't. Premeasuring has made it a lot easier to play clean and precise without creating measurement arguments.
I actually liked the no pre-measuring, but yeah, it did drive a lot of arguments. Besides, people used their warcasters bubble range to "premeasure" anyway. I'm good with 40k for now, I sold all my Cryx, Menoth, and Skorne and I'm happy with just 40k anymore lol
What really killed no premeasuring was the scenario zones. It's pretty hard to make guessing a 11" threat a challenge when you're both in a 12" diameter circle.
The other thing I've been happier with in MK3 is that I feel like a single faction covers a lot more game than before and I don't feel the same need for multiple armies I once did. I have a ton of factions, but I've largely scaled back and focused on two, putting the extra time and money towards branching out to other game systems instead.
) with Daemon and Chaos units..."
There ya go
