I have seen people write here that the game is unbalanced (in a way it seems like a marketing campain for certain models) and some people do not like that aspect on otherwise great game.

I have also seen a person to say he could rebalance the game but takes no action for it.


So, i suggest to use this thread to focus or rebalance the game keeping other changes than point cost changes at minimum. So no changing the rules or inventing new ones but to keep the game as it is. I do not own or have acces to any of the rule books so i cannot fully participate but i take the initiative to suggest this.

I am also aware that tweaking the game usually makes it in fact worse, but i still suggest and hope that instead of endlessly talk about it, rather do something constructive. If this goes to anything i might participate in the future.


One idea would be also to attach custom made material (units, relics, factions, chapters and so) in the same way than forge world models without affecting the core.

What specific rule are you confused about?

I think maybe you posted in the wrong forum, as I do not see a specific rules question for the YMDC area.

Indeed, the YMDC forum is for answering specific rules questions. We also have a forum for proposed rules;
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/16.page

However I have moved this to 40k General as it doesn't make any specific fix proposals.

Whaaaiiil....

Amongst many other things, the game suffers from trying to fit too broad of a variety of units into too small of a random number generator.

When there are weapons that kill Marines as quickly as Guardsmen, then how do you balance Marines (statistically better) against Guardsmen?

You can’t, really. You have to create rock-paper-scissors balance. Guardsmen beat Knights, Knights beat Marines, and Marines beat Guardsmen.

Sooo...

The best you can do is aim for codex vs codex balance, looking at a few (3, say) thematic builds from each, and how those themes balance against each other and then externally.

And that’s pretty hard even for a more limited game than 40k. If we hope for even 2 thematic builds per 20 factions, that’s 40 x 40 balance points. 1600 combinations to try to balance. Three themes each is 3600 combinations with multitudes of variation between.

Which leads to “people” being unable to see overall balance solutions. In a busy club, a person might encounter 40 themes, maybe? Yeah, big tournaments show what people looking to exploit the system can pull together.

The game’s balance can most efficiently be corrected with minor point tweaks at a time. Units that consistently see tournament play get a 5% bump for 6 months. Units that consistently do NOT see tournament play get a 5% decrease.

Over time, the balance should sort out.

I understand that GW’s business model works by “encouraging” people to buy the hot new thing by making them more powerful in-game. That is their choice, perhaps.

Idea is to first hunt those elements that are clearly "pts marketing" to buy something and adjust the point costs to the same level with other similar units.

That would seem the first step and other would be to hunt units that are for some reason overcosted and think about adjusting them also.

After that could discuss about immaterial stuff like relics and in my opinion not change how they work when suggesting changes and why. Some relics could cost 2cp instead of one for example when being clearly stronger than the rest and so could only be accessible through said strategem.

And additional stuff under additional marker.

Idea would be to produce a game where people say less that its unbalanced that and unfair that. You have to have roots, you re a great big tree.


Your canadian take is too complicated.

Tournament play should never be the basis on creating game balance as it is biased on some imaginary meta as a whole, creating more imbalance in general. True balance should be acquired outside tournament meta and let the tournament players shift to that and not the otherway around.


Perfect balance should not be the ideal in this. Making all options viable / useful / fun is.

Points alone probably would not balance out 40k. There are some units that are just way to simple to function in a rule set like this.
With lots of stacking rules that interact in ways that can throw off any thoughts to balance.
Even just having the same weapon at the same points on two seperate platforms will throw that balance off.

 greatbigtree wrote:

The game’s balance can most efficiently be corrected with minor point tweaks at a time. Units that consistently see tournament play get a 5% bump for 6 months. Units that consistently do NOT see tournament play get a 5% decrease.

That's a daft solution.
1) What if you keep seeing certain units? Are you going to keep upping the point cost 5% every 6 months?
2) Are you going to up t(& up & up & up) the cost of basic core units of a force? You know, those units you'd EXPECT most examples of an army of _____ to include?

And this won't balance the units. It MIGHT increase variety in your tournies. But it won't change how units play or die.

Yeah that would hardly work if tournaments used the actual 40k rules but since they are all house rule based why should GW penalise people who use the proper rules.

SeanDrake wrote:
Yeah that would hardly work if tournaments used the actual 40k rules but since they are all house rule based why should GW penalise people who use the proper rules.

DINGDINGDING we have a winner.

something something tourney ruleset.

you'd be surprised to find when you play open war with cities of death and the additional terrain rules, there's plenty of mitigation for T1 bitchslapping.

Go in universe for a moment and perhaps look at things differently. Units and factions ARE NOT balanced. And maybe that's ok. Which it's why it's ok to field a small Space Marine army against a big Tyrannid army and have a pretty enjoyable ('balanced') game.

I think the solution to this is common sense flexibility and gaming experience.

Of course there will always be combinations, with certain weapons or psychic abilities, which will sometimes seem to make things 'unbalanced'. But again, that's the reality of the 40k universe and there's no reason why that shouldn't be replicated on the tabletop. Makes it all more interesting and unpredictable, which is half the fun!

Get rid of all those rules that make shoot twice, fight twice, and so on.

Tweak barrage weapons, now too powerful.

Well if you wanted somewhere to start, i'd suggest:

- assigning points costs to all of the free rules and items
- granting CPs based on game size (and deduct for extra detachments)
- switching auras to single unit buffs

 Darian Aarush wrote:
Go in universe for a moment and perhaps look at things differently. Units and factions ARE NOT balanced. And maybe that's ok. Which it's why it's ok to field a small Space Marine army against a big Tyrannid army and have a pretty enjoyable ('balanced') game.

I think the solution to this is common sense flexibility and gaming experience.

Of course there will always be combinations, with certain weapons or psychic abilities, which will sometimes seem to make things 'unbalanced'. But again, that's the reality of the 40k universe and there's no reason why that shouldn't be replicated on the tabletop. Makes it all more interesting and unpredictable, which is half the fun!

This is all narrative stuff that should not be represented in rules, blood angels have been wiped out like twice. But we cannot just up there points by 10 and say that’s all they have for each engagement to spare.
Or that space marine players have to roll to see if they can play this match as there is not enough of them to get to every battle in the imperium.
Nid players can just keep putting models on the table each turn and the game does not end until they get tired to represent the way they ether swarm relentlessly over a whole planet until they are finished and destroyed.
At a point you have to concede some of these to narrative play only.
Some things are fine being a bit off balance wise, but right now. Way to much is. Better balance also helps narrative games.

As well as design balance pushed towards making a narrative balance in each army on the battlefield.

How to balance 40k?

First of all, you need a design proposal on how the game should look like and than stick to it

GW usually stays with their initial edition design for the first year, than starts to change stuff and at the end of an edition lifetime the balance is off in a way that a new edition is needed to shake everything up

8th started with "points are paid for everything" and to regain balance, everything that is free would need a point value to be paid

this also means CP generation as equal amount of points should generate equal amounts of CP

same as everything that let you do stuff outside the core rule mechanics (fight twice etc)

Another problem to be solved are too low basic point costs
As it is impossible to balance points if general costs are already too low so there is no room for changes (except for making everything more expensive instead of lowering the points of 1 unit)

than we can talk about army and table size as the current 2000 points are too large for the suggested table size

PS: and all changes made to balance the game will be seen as "this is not 40k anymore and too much to be acceptable" until GW makes changes that go much deeper into the core mechanics and people will go for "best 40k ever"

The thing that gets me, is 40k looks and plays like a game that is copying a bunch from other games, and there own spin on it was to make a worse version.
A lot of what they do would have worked with competent design and thought put into it, even before rules.
Rule of cool used as an excuse to cover up poor design all along the way.

We talk and talk about balance but does anyone really think we'll ever have it ? At the start of 8th was the best hope we'd come out balanced at the end of it all and I think we see where this train is going now. It's not stopping at balance town.

Balanced is never a goal they are aiming for, they just aren't honest about saying so. Good enough that people can argue they are trying is all they care about.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
We talk and talk about balance but does anyone really think we'll ever have it ? At the start of 8th was the best hope we'd come out balanced at the end of it all and I think we see where this train is going now. It's not stopping at balance town.

Balanced is never a goal they are aiming for, they just aren't honest about saying so. Good enough that people can argue they are trying is all they care about.

8th was fairly clearly a fail from the start. About the only thing that changed was better marketing of there ideas, but it was not good. And went down the expected path.
Really they did nothing that on its own would provide better balance, and a lot of there design invited less.
With 8 I think it was more a showing of how simple they think there players are, and how bad from design the 40k team as a whole seems to be. Who knows why or where, but if they have no idea what’s wrong. Fixes do little but change things.

Ok i will ask this:

Can anyone give examples of single units that are overcosted ?

Can anyone give examples of single units that are undercosted ?


No rules changes whatsoever. Only adjusting points if necessary.

In case of relics, cp is concidered as "points" and this leads to third question: Can anyone give examples which relics are at least twice as powerful than others ?


Side question, are there still gaming groups that play other editions ?

Side note, purpose of this thread is to create a more balanced version of the current rules, not to just discuss about making it. Then everyone can decide do they want to use the official or "balanced" version of the same rule set.


Another side question: what games 8th ed 40k have taken rules from, and what rules ?


I will mention that there is still zero response that contributes to anything in this project.

All you'd need to do really is check out most high end lists. You'll see some units that are right on or under costed, and what everyone takes for relics will be your over performing ones. The same issues that plagued the game in editions past is still there.

Some choices are no brainer great, others, you'd need to have no brain to take them I doubt anyone has enough time to just list them all book by book but you'll see most of the same units and options in list after list if you look hard enough.

That is exactly what i am asking for, to list those things if anyone is that much interested. It is vital for this project.

Even better if one has a solid suggestion of point changes.

All relic changes would preferably be 1 cp -> 2 cp, no more. (I can see why ironstone would be 3 though)

I can't think of many really undercosted units.

Maybe something of the new marine stuff, but we still have no clear picture on them and before a big round of FAQs it's too early to talk.

For 3cp artifacts just look at knights. So many of those are easily worth 3 cps.

Greater Blight Drone shouldn't be more expensive than the Bloat Drone, as it's practically worse, but it can infiltrate. So make it about 160 points instead of the 230(!) it's now.
Same goes for Plague Hulk, make it 170 like the Defiler instead of 210.

Land Raiders are still on the expensive side.
Possessed don't compare well to Berzerkers but I'm not sure if it's more of a Berzerker problem.

Horticulous Slimux costs 190 Points, imo he'd be okay with 150 or less. Beasts of Nurgle are overpriced, too.

Plagueburst Crawler seems pretty cheap for its durability.
Daemon Prince is always the number 1 character, could be more expensive.
These are what comes to mind in my armies.

Forgive me for saying this, but the OP is being hopelessly naive to think that this could be done in a single thread. And that is only if you agree with the original assertion that the game is unbalanced.

If you want to see how complicated a fan made system is, check out the work by the Ninth Age team. Incredible work ethic and a really fantastic game, though I have no idea how the contributors found the time they did to support it.

As for 40k, I don't find it unbalanced. My gaming group plays, we have fun close games and occassionally go to tournaments where (with little real meta practice) we generally go 3-2 or 2-3. That to me says it's basically ok. Yes there will be internet warriors who will tell people to take 8 flyer lists or 5 repulsor lists, but in the real work 9/10 gamers don't want to buy that many expensive versions of the same model.

I live in a competitive region. The majority of 40k players here burn and churn and chase the meta. If you aren't fielding a tournament calibre list and you show up to game day, you will get trashed based off of lists alone.

Based on that alone, I view 40k as an unbalanced entity that requires heavy social engineering to have good games in, or luck of having a group that won't min/max at every opportunity and force the entire group to follow suit.

Balancing 40K for competitive play is easy.

You could play perfect-mirror tournaments with only one list pre-set by the TO allowed for all players.

You could allow 100% open allies with all models in the game available to all players all the time, all buffs, psychics, etc.. applying to all other models made by GW, etc.., , effectively having one big super-faction to chose from.

You could list-swap before each game, and/or play multiple rounds against the same opponent, some with your list, some list-swapped, etc...

Etc..

Apple fox wrote:

 Darian Aarush wrote:
Go in universe for a moment and perhaps look at things differently. Units and factions ARE NOT balanced. And maybe that's ok. Which it's why it's ok to field a small Space Marine army against a big Tyrannid army and have a pretty enjoyable ('balanced') game.

I think the solution to this is common sense flexibility and gaming experience.

Of course there will always be combinations, with certain weapons or psychic abilities, which will sometimes seem to make things 'unbalanced'. But again, that's the reality of the 40k universe and there's no reason why that shouldn't be replicated on the tabletop. Makes it all more interesting and unpredictable, which is half the fun!

This is all narrative stuff that should not be represented in rules, blood angels have been wiped out like twice. But we cannot just up there points by 10 and say that’s all they have for each engagement to spare.
Or that space marine players have to roll to see if they can play this match as there is not enough of them to get to every battle in the imperium.
Nid players can just keep putting models on the table each turn and the game does not end until they get tired to represent the way they ether swarm relentlessly over a whole planet until they are finished and destroyed.
At a point you have to concede some of these to narrative play only.
Some things are fine being a bit off balance wise, but right now. Way to much is. Better balance also helps narrative games.

As well as design balance pushed towards making a narrative balance in each army on the battlefield.

Fair point, well made.

I will take all suggestions on a text file and post the results later on.

This will form a basics on this attempt.

I will only take account on specific suggestions and thus far there is one. If there is too few suggestions i will type the vague ones that point to some direction such as "relics on a certain book".


As it is, the final version should be done by someone else as i lack the experience and material to do so. If no one is up to the task i could get back to this after i have gained more experience in this matter but this could take years and possibly never even happen. (i have played this game only once in the early 2000).

Possibly the best result would be if the version is done by a single person with honest and dedicated approach.


General guidelines when doing this (as i imagine it)
-Game rules should not be adjusted, only the point costs
-Point costs should be first adjusted a minimal required amount as there might be factors one did not take to account, at least if the point is not clear enough
-Adjusted units and relics should be kept in minimum and overall all changes as light as possible and thus keeping the game the same as official rules -> with an approach that do not try to sell models to the players

Those are the general view points in this project.


Things that should be avoided:
-Too many people forcing their own view through
-Changing the gameplay to something else (which is also fine, but only in a different project and a lot harder to make work)


Comment on chapter approved: If it gives the players the stable pts cost environment they want, this project is pointless but i doubt it as so many people are discussing this subject, which is the reason i made this topic in the first place. (As why not do something about it)

Amai wrote:
I will take all suggestions on a text file and post the results later on.

This will form a basics on this attempt.

I will only take account on specific suggestions and thus far there is one. If there is too few suggestions i will type the vague ones that point to some direction such as "relics on a certain book".


As it is, the final version should be done by someone else as i lack the experience and material to do so. If no one is up to the task i could get back to this after i have gained more experience in this matter but this could take years and possibly never even happen. (i have played this game only once in the early 2000).

Possibly the best result would be if the version is done by a single person with honest and dedicated approach.

Well. we have that, it's called Chapter approved

Amai wrote:
Ok i will ask this:

Can anyone give examples of single units that are overcosted ?

The stompa

Amai wrote:

Can anyone give examples of single units that are undercosted ?

Iron father feirros

Amai wrote:

Can anyone give examples which relics are at least twice as powerful than others ?

the ironstone vs The Skull of Elder Nikola

Amai wrote:

I will mention that there is still zero response that contributes to anything in this project.

agreed, because armchair balancing is a lot harder than it seems. But still, i think bringing up the fact that "free" stuff needs to have points cost (relics for example, but i don't think paying for warlord traits and even chapter tactics would be bad fo the balance of the game)

GW has actually done a half-decent job. The last CA was fairly on-target with a couple obvious bloops (Tac Marine prices for instance, although those have changed since). Much of what was stupidly OP or undercosted got addressed.

I do think additional points refinements could certainly help. However, the crux of the current balance problems aren't points - they're stacking rules.

While out of scope, I believe a gutting of Chapter Tactics (across all factions) would be the single biggest step in the right direction balance-wise. Currently, an UltraMarine LandSpeeder isn't the same points as an Iron Hands or Salamander LandSpeeder, for instance. You can't fix that with changing the LandSpeeder points value; it's either too high for UM or too low for IH.

For points changes alone, you should peruse Proposed Rules. You'd be shocked how many absurdly outsized "fixes" there are. Take Guardsmen, for instance; there's a non-trivial fraction of the fanbase that thinks they're worth 6ppm minimum, and a non-trivial fraction of the fanbase that thinks they're worth 4ppm maximum (which side is crazy is offtopic). No single points value is going to get a strong consensus agreement.

I could share some things I'd like to see:
-Dire Avengers: -1ppm
-Exarchs (all non-vehicles): +10ppm
-Tac/Dev/ASM(/CSM/etc): -1ppm (beyond even Codex)
But I"m sure there's a dozen people who object to each of those.

Bharring wrote:
While out of scope, I believe a gutting of Chapter Tactics (across all factions) would be the single biggest step in the right direction balance-wise. Currently, an UltraMarine LandSpeeder isn't the same points as an Iron Hands or Salamander LandSpeeder, for instance. You can't fix that with changing the LandSpeeder points value; it's either too high for UM or too low for IH.

Honestly, I don't have a huge problem with chapter tactics and stratagems influencing which models in an army are more immediately useful for a sub faction in terms of balance, but there definitely should be more of an eye toward combo rules really breaking things and keeping the tactics balanced overall. But the community doesn't really help matters when every new combo is world ending and must be nerfed before it ever even hits a table.

Though I'm personally a bit salty about how hard the GSC was 'balanced' and thusly largely neutered while space marines are handed a way to ambush turn one when they don't really need that very much. That said, I can understand the deepstrike rule implemented(and could readily live without the exception granted marines) and I feel like there should be a similar approach taken to stacking effects. I'd quite honestly say(even to the further detriment of GSC) that at any phase a unit should have to select a single aura(or perhaps model projecting auras) that it is influenced by and have a max of one stratagem and/or artifact effecting it.

But people will probably shoot that down as extra book keeping like CP being aligned to faction that generated it which is still one of my favorite fixes for this edition that hasn't happened.

I dont think chapter tactics is that bad. None of the actual SM chapter tactics makes or break anything. Its the doctrines, traits, relics, powers and 50 stratagems available to each chapter that breaks it.

There is like 35 common SM strats and 15 for each suppliment. And having access to 12 warlord traits that you can stack and twice the relics of any other factions with 3 different psychic trees you have way too many options that can stack. And this is if mono chapter. If playing 3 different SM detachments you have 3-10 chapter tactics, 80ish stratagems, 24 warlord traits, 40ish relics and 30 psychic powers to choose from to tailor your perfect SM army and all you lose is the super doctrine since you still have the normal ones. And units/characters from 3 different chapters. Like you could take Shrike to go with some vanguard and then ferros with some tanks and Guilliman taking a flank.

If you removed the super doctrines and removed 10 or so common SM strats. Then you could have each supplement give 1-2 warlord traits, 2-3 relics, 2 psychic powers and maybe 5 stratagems to differentiate them a bit. That the supplements ADD so many extra abilities to the core codex is insane since it already is more fleshed out than any other book. Its the stacking upon stacking that is the problem.

Just think about playing against a list like that at a tournament if you yourself isnt super faminilar with Marines. You cant spend 60min before the game reading through all their special special special rules since before you actually deploy the opponent still havent chosen what traits/relics and powers to use. And remembering what out of 80 strats the opponent have avaiblable to which SM unit them at any time isnt gonna be easy. Way too much special rules in these new books

Klickor wrote:
I dont think chapter tactics is that bad. None of the actual SM chapter tactics makes or break anything. Its the doctrines, traits, relics, powers and 50 stratagems available to each chapter that breaks it.

There is like 35 common SM strats and 15 for each suppliment. And having access to 12 warlord traits that you can stack and twice the relics of any other factions with 3 different psychic trees you have way too many options that can stack. And this is if mono chapter. If playing 3 different SM detachments you have 3-10 chapter tactics, 80ish stratagems, 24 warlord traits, 40ish relics and 30 psychic powers to choose from to tailor your perfect SM army and all you lose is the super doctrine since you still have the normal ones. And units/characters from 3 different chapters. Like you could take Shrike to go with some vanguard and then ferros with some tanks and Guilliman taking a flank.

If you removed the super doctrines and removed 10 or so common SM strats. Then you could have each supplement give 1-2 warlord traits, 2-3 relics, 2 psychic powers and maybe 5 stratagems to differentiate them a bit. That the supplements ADD so many extra abilities to the core codex is insane since it already is more fleshed out than any other book. Its the stacking upon stacking that is the problem.

But how do you balance fairly by points cost when Chapter Tactics means the same model, for the same points, can have two different values?

Bharring wrote:

But how do you balance fairly by points cost when Chapter Tactics means the same model, for the same points, can have two different values?

Different points costs for units with different chapter tactics.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Bharring wrote:

But how do you balance fairly by points cost when Chapter Tactics means the same model, for the same points, can have two different values?

Different points costs for units with different chapter tactics.

That is an entirely possible way to do so. I want to stress, though, that without doing so - you can't actually balance different-value Chapter Tactics.

Cutting traits, relics and so would be huge mistake on the fun part which have always been highlighted as the most important.

Balance changes should only be made if they support in having fun and less relic choises do not. In my opinion more choices would but that would cross the principle of not inventing stuff but can still be done under "additional" content as one would simply just not use them and thus wont necessarily affect the gameplay.

Different point costs for different chapters should not still take away the charcteristics of said chapter as in iron hands, the vehicles should be more powerful than others for their points but, the others should have something nearly, as good or even better to suit their chapter. This will also result in more armies that share the chapters feel. If all chapters have as good vehicles per points there is really not anything going on iron hands in that regard.


I see lots of iron hands list have few cp so, if ironstone would be 3 cp they should have very few of them to use in game so no re-rolls, no strategems and so. Players would have to choose between maximising vehicles in the list building phase, strategems and relics. Is ironstone worth it or am i better with 3 other relics instead ?

Would result in different kind of lists but still focusing heavily on vehicles, maintaining all given mechanisms.

Bharring wrote:

But how do you balance fairly by points cost when Chapter Tactics means the same model, for the same points, can have two different values?

You dont have too. As long as the core game favors multiple kinds of unit and playstyles in a single list its ok if some units are a little bit better with 1 tactic than another. Lets say you have a SM army with some elite CC units, some mobile units, some troops and some tanks. In a well writen rule set you would want to have this kind of allround list for different things. Doesnt really matter then if IH makes the tanks better than if you were White Scars that only make the mobile element better. You would still have attack bikes/speeders/jump marines in an IH list and tanks in a WS list just that IH might take an extra tank and a WS list a few more bikes.

The game at the moment doesnt really penalize you for going almost all in on vehicles with a mono IH list that stacks a ton of other things beside the chapter tactic to make it completely different from a WS list. The problem isnt really the chapter tactic here. Even without chapter tactics you would still see IH lists built the same and be way better than any other SM vehicle heavy list.

If IH didnt get its insane doctrine but WS let you move without penalty then IH would have a bit sturdier vehicles, WS a bit more mobile vehicles, RG more accurate vehicles against characters, UM not caring about being touched in melee and so on. Small differences that all make a vehicle better. And perhaps Blood Angels would get extra charge distance/deny overwatch against a target damaged by a BA vehicle as its vehicle chapter tactic. Each vehicle would not be exactly the same in each chapter but when building an allround list it wouldnt matter too much, they would still be usable in a competetive setting.

In Warmachine I used to play very solo heavy and most of my models didnt hinge too much on certain synergies from my caster (closest to chapter tactics we got). No matter what caster I used I still had some units in my list that did very different things from just kill or take damage. Depending on matchup I could win games without killing a single enemy model by just using supporting and controlling elements in my list to win on scenarios. In other games I used the same abilities to set up kills and then wiped them out. I had some units in my list that changed depending on what caster I played but many stayed because they had unique uses that was more important than tiny caster synergies. 40k lacks many of those things. Here you really want to stack synergies to insane levels, especially in the new IH book and be so dominant in 1 aspect that nothing else really matters. If you kill the enemy in 1 turn they cant score or if you are unkillable they cant stop you from scoring. You cant really outmaneouver an IH list if you have a slight lack of terrain or a Knight/Tank commander list if they go first on the same bad table. You are just dead without any options.

TLR Dont focus on the details while the core rules are crap and break stuff. You cant really balance everything while you mainly only have 2 important aspects to each model. How killy is it and how sturdy is it. You dont need perfect balance between units/chapters/factions if different units have different usages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amai wrote:
Cutting traits, relics and so would be huge mistake on the fun part which have always been highlighted as the most important.

Balance changes should only be made if they support in having fun and less relic choises do not. In my opinion more choices would but that would cross the principle of not inventing stuff but can still be done under "additional" content as sone would simply just not use them and thus wont necessarily affect the gameplay.

Different point costs for different chapters should not still take away the charcteristics of said chapter as in iron hands, the vehicles should be more powerful than others for their points but, the others should have something nearly, as good or even better to suit their chapter. This will also result in more armies that share the chapters feel. If all chapters have as good vehicles per points there is really not anything going on iron hands in that regard.

Traits, relics and other such stuff didnt exist before and we could still have fun. Sure if they were all toned down to the level of the worst of them it wouldnt really make a problem but all the options in the SM book is insane. Its almost impossible to make them balanced if each trait/relic/power/strat actually does something good. You have 100+ datasheets with 100 different weapons and hundreds of special rules to tailor that. Either most become very slight and tiny upgrades or you remove most of them and let those that remain actually do something. Cant really have both ways while still not putting much effort into balance. More choice at some point just leads to less actual choice in practice. Out of all the rules stacking we have now in marines some units are improved a ton while others just suck even more since they didnt get anything special for them to make them better compared to those that werent forgotten. Take terminators in RG for example. Why would you ever want them when you can infiltrate/deepstrike aggressors or centurions that are way better since they got new tools while the terminators didnt. More options for RG made the terminators even more irrelevant.

Nah the amount is not a problem in my opinion, most of the units are similar enough that they fill the same role. Most of the traits, psychic powers and relics are too.

Problem in my opinion is if something is seen as clearly superior to others. Having ironstone being in the same pick category than other relics is just wrong.

Psychic powers have different casting values to represent this, relics should have too (different cp values if neccessary)

Warlord traits should be free in my opinion and as far as i know they are quite evenly matched between eachother. Some are maybe a bit stronger than others in a given setting but not as much as in ironstone vs other relics for example.


Maybe the raven guards are so in to it in the present that they dont use them anymore and see them as outdated as some other chapter could relish their oly armors. If this would be the case with every chapter there would surely be a problem in pts balance between those units.

Could it still be viable for raven guard to use terminators together with infiltrating suits and pre moving assault unit to form a strong motion ?

The chapter special only allows the move of one unit so, maybe the terminators are still viable as a support ?

Amai wrote:
Nah the amount is not a problem in my opinion, most of the units are similar enough that they fill the same role. Most of the traits, psychic powers and relics are too.

Problem in my opinion is if something is seen as clearly superior to others. Having ironstone being in the same pick category than other relics is just wrong.

Psychic powers have different casting values to represent this, relics should have too (different cp values if neccessary)

Warlord traits should be free in my opinion and as far as i know they are quite evenly matched between eachother. Some are maybe a bit stronger than others in a given setting but not as much as in ironstone vs other relics for example.


Maybe the raven guards are so in to it in the present that they dont use them anymore and see them as outdated as some other chapter could relish their oly armors. If this would be the case with every chapter there would surely be a problem in pts balance between those units.

Could it still be viable for raven guard still use terminators together with infiltrating suits and pre moving assault unit to form a strong motion ?

The chapter special only allows the move of one unit so, maybe the terminators are still viable as a support ?

But weak relics/traits isnt much different from normal wargear options. And lots of tiny weak options doesnt really matter in the game if they are that weak/balanced. Like the difference in buying 25 powerswords or 20 power axes in an army is barely noticeable over a few games. And that is taking 20-25 of a weak option instead of just 1 that is slightly stronger. We already have too many worthless options/rules that could be baked into units as it is.

Trait only allows 1 unit to infiltrate but you can use strats to move or deepstrike a unit for 1cp per unit. Usable as many times as you have units/cp. Making terminators really really bad in comparison. Not that they are any good with the other chapters, just that they are even worse in RG.

No believe this a masterpiece all is though carefully well and only the greed for money is tainting it.

There is a thread for suggesting more balanced pts costs is here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778872.page

The problem with a fan patch is that you'll miss things, you might end up nerfing all the good stuff my faction has without properly nerfing all the good stuff my opponents get, that might not be fun. Better The Devil You Know Than The Devil You Don't, even if GW is imperfect, putting your faith in some rando on the internet might not sound equally good to everyone, one guy not jumping on the band-wagon might tip the cart. In larger or less cohesive communities it's very hard to use fan patches, especially if several fan patches circulate. That being said Frontline Gaming with their ITC rules were successful in making popular house rules for 7th and 8th that have been used both in competitive and casual settings. The BCP app might give you better ideas, I'm not a paying subscriber so I don't have all the data, you'd want that if you wanted to balance the game most likely, 40kstats is a free website with lots of good information, but no information on individual unit performances. I'm not going to use any pts updates but GW or ITC create, even those I create myself I won't use because I don't want to bother finding people that want to use my pts.

In addition, how am I supposed to balance the pts for Craftworlds when Space Marines suddenly set a new bar for what is good and what is bad? How about when FAQs or new missions are added? Changing rules is anathema to balance, a lake won't be still while you're throwing rocks in, it needs time to settle. The game lacks a pts anchor, that's the first thing I did when I started writing fan codexes for 7th edition, but I am very sure 8th doesn't have that so it's all sort of a sea of things changing on the whims of the developers. You are going to be meeting difficulties if you want to create pts that are not just a balanced system when used against people that use the system, but also balanced against people that are using regular pts. When Cultists are 5 pts and Imperial Guardsmen are 4, where is the balance? Where do you set the bar for what is fair? Is it at the unkillable Dreadnought, or the kind of bad Cultist, the 13 pt CSM or the 12 pt SM?

The following threads might give you an idea about which rules are OP and need to be nerfed or buffed:

Space Marines Chapter, Stratagem, WL Trait, Psychic Powers and Relic Balance: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/781101.page

For Tau: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/776740.page

For Orks: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/779167.page

For Necrons: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/776532.page

For Craftworlds: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/776718.page

Amai wrote:
Side question, are there still gaming groups that play other editions?

I've come across at least one person that claims 7th edition was the holy grail and that seems to be what he plays with his gaming group, several people claim that 7th was good except for the broken codexes. 5th edition is looked back on as a mostly fine core ruleset, I'm sure there one or two dozen in the world that play that as well. Compared to the explosive success that is 8th edition, nothing comes close.

Bharring wrote:

Klickor wrote:
I dont think chapter tactics is that bad. None of the actual SM chapter tactics makes or break anything. Its the doctrines, traits, relics, powers and 50 stratagems available to each chapter that breaks it.

There is like 35 common SM strats and 15 for each suppliment. And having access to 12 warlord traits that you can stack and twice the relics of any other factions with 3 different psychic trees you have way too many options that can stack. And this is if mono chapter. If playing 3 different SM detachments you have 3-10 chapter tactics, 80ish stratagems, 24 warlord traits, 40ish relics and 30 psychic powers to choose from to tailor your perfect SM army and all you lose is the super doctrine since you still have the normal ones. And units/characters from 3 different chapters. Like you could take Shrike to go with some vanguard and then ferros with some tanks and Guilliman taking a flank.

If you removed the super doctrines and removed 10 or so common SM strats. Then you could have each supplement give 1-2 warlord traits, 2-3 relics, 2 psychic powers and maybe 5 stratagems to differentiate them a bit. That the supplements ADD so many extra abilities to the core codex is insane since it already is more fleshed out than any other book. Its the stacking upon stacking that is the problem.

But how do you balance fairly by points cost when Chapter Tactics means the same model, for the same points, can have two different values?

By having all of them have roughly the same value.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Whaaaiiil....

Amongst many other things, the game suffers from trying to fit too broad of a variety of units into too small of a random number generator.

When there are weapons that kill Marines as quickly as Guardsmen, then how do you balance Marines (statistically better) against Guardsmen?

You can’t, really. You have to create rock-paper-scissors balance. Guardsmen beat Knights, Knights beat Marines, and Marines beat Guardsmen.

Sooo...

The best you can do is aim for codex vs codex balance, looking at a few (3, say) thematic builds from each, and how those themes balance against each other and then externally.

And that’s pretty hard even for a more limited game than 40k. If we hope for even 2 thematic builds per 20 factions, that’s 40 x 40 balance points. 1600 combinations to try to balance. Three themes each is 3600 combinations with multitudes of variation between.

Which leads to “people” being unable to see overall balance solutions. In a busy club, a person might encounter 40 themes, maybe? Yeah, big tournaments show what people looking to exploit the system can pull together.

The game’s balance can most efficiently be corrected with minor point tweaks at a time. Units that consistently see tournament play get a 5% bump for 6 months. Units that consistently do NOT see tournament play get a 5% decrease.

Over time, the balance should sort out.

I understand that GW’s business model works by “encouraging” people to buy the hot new thing by making them more powerful in-game. That is their choice, perhaps.

Nope, the problem lies in GW changing design ideas every year and forcefully making the last armies much stronger than early ones. You could say that they are improving in terms of codex design but it doesn't warrant leaving armies in the dust of unplayability for several years while they could just speed up the release cycle and get there in relatively short time.

 Ordana wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Klickor wrote:
I dont think chapter tactics is that bad. None of the actual SM chapter tactics makes or break anything. Its the doctrines, traits, relics, powers and 50 stratagems available to each chapter that breaks it.

There is like 35 common SM strats and 15 for each suppliment. And having access to 12 warlord traits that you can stack and twice the relics of any other factions with 3 different psychic trees you have way too many options that can stack. And this is if mono chapter. If playing 3 different SM detachments you have 3-10 chapter tactics, 80ish stratagems, 24 warlord traits, 40ish relics and 30 psychic powers to choose from to tailor your perfect SM army and all you lose is the super doctrine since you still have the normal ones. And units/characters from 3 different chapters. Like you could take Shrike to go with some vanguard and then ferros with some tanks and Guilliman taking a flank.

If you removed the super doctrines and removed 10 or so common SM strats. Then you could have each supplement give 1-2 warlord traits, 2-3 relics, 2 psychic powers and maybe 5 stratagems to differentiate them a bit. That the supplements ADD so many extra abilities to the core codex is insane since it already is more fleshed out than any other book. Its the stacking upon stacking that is the problem.

But how do you balance fairly by points cost when Chapter Tactics means the same model, for the same points, can have two different values?

By having all of them have roughly the same value.

It's impossible to have roughly the same value with the same rule for two different units. Adding 3" to weapons is more valuable to a 9" range weapon than a 48" range weapon, similarly re-rolling hit rolls of 1s for bolt weapons is more valuable for units that are armed with bolt weapons. The only option with chapter tactics is to create one or two competitive lists for each chapter, but making every unit an option in every chapter is impossible.

Lets just see here.

An Iron Hands speeder costs the same as an Ultras speeder

Turn1 - The ironhands can move and shoot with no pentaly, rerolls 1's with all its weapons, and can even fall back and shoot without pentalty, and has a 6+ FNP and overwatches on 5's.

Ultras speeder on turn 2 move and and shoot without penalty but suffers penalty for falling back and shooting. All of this at -1 AP due to doctrines changing over to tactical.

This is balanced? No...these kinds of unbalance shouldn't even make it past the brainstorming stage but they managed to make it past probably 5 more more serious steps of balancing before sending to print. Unblanace such as this is a clear indicator of balance not even being a goal for the game designers. They literally DO NOT CARE at all about balance. You want a balanced game. Start coming together to make better rules we can all agree on.

It seems there are not much to rebalance after all. Maybe this is done quite easily. Maximum of couple sentences for each codex and for some codexes none whatsoever.


Units need not to be balanced between the chapters as long as there is something else in another chapters favour and i think there are.


Those links are of little use in this as they follow different perspective. Those could be a source of something else with a lot of more changes.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Amai wrote:
Ok i will ask this:

Can anyone give examples of single units that are overcosted ?

The stompa
...
agreed, because armchair balancing is a lot harder than it seems. But still, i think bringing up the fact that "free" stuff needs to have points cost (relics for example, but i don't think paying for warlord traits and even chapter tactics would be bad fo the balance of the game)

exalted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets just see here.

An Iron Hands speeder costs the same as an Ultras speeder

Turn1 - The ironhands can move and shoot with no pentaly, rerolls 1's with all its weapons, and can even fall back and shoot without pentalty, and has a 6+ FNP and overwatches on 5's.

Ultras speeder on turn 2 move and and shoot without penalty but suffers penalty for falling back and shooting. All of this at -1 AP due to doctrines changing over to tactical.

This is balanced? No...these kinds of unbalance shouldn't even make it past the brainstorming stage but they managed to make it past probably 5 more more serious steps of balancing before sending to print. Unblanace such as this is a clear indicator of balance not even being a goal for the game designers. They literally DO NOT CARE at all about balance. You want a balanced game. Start coming together to make better rules we can all agree on.

The consensus may depend on USRs and variations specific to chapters/factions/units that end up with minor but important changes to context dependent abilities.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets just see here.

An Iron Hands speeder costs the same as an Ultras speeder

Turn1 - The ironhands can move and shoot with no pentaly, rerolls 1's with all its weapons, and can even fall back and shoot without pentalty, and has a 6+ FNP and overwatches on 5's.

Ultras speeder on turn 2 move and and shoot without penalty but suffers penalty for falling back and shooting. All of this at -1 AP due to doctrines changing over to tactical.

Unless Land Speeders lost Fly, where's the penalty to hit coming from?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amai wrote:
It seems there are not much to rebalance after all. Maybe this is done quite easily. Maximum of couple sentences for each codex and for some codexes none whatsoever.


Units need not to be balanced between the chapters as long as there is something else in another chapters favour and i think there are.


Those links are of little use in this as they follow different perspective. Those could be a source of something else with a lot of more changes.

What points values should you give to Iyanden's CT versus Uthwe's CT? And how would you leverage them? Uthwe's CT outperforms Iyanden's very directly, for instance.

Those links are attempts to rebalance. They often didn't follow your requirement of "Must be points changes, or doesn't matter". Which should be unsurprising because they didn't come about as a result of your request.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets just see here.

An Iron Hands speeder costs the same as an Ultras speeder

Turn1 - The ironhands can move and shoot with no pentaly, rerolls 1's with all its weapons, and can even fall back and shoot without pentalty, and has a 6+ FNP and overwatches on 5's.

Ultras speeder on turn 2 move and and shoot without penalty but suffers penalty for falling back and shooting. All of this at -1 AP due to doctrines changing over to tactical.

This is balanced? No...these kinds of unbalance shouldn't even make it past the brainstorming stage but they managed to make it past probably 5 more more serious steps of balancing before sending to print. Unblanace such as this is a clear indicator of balance not even being a goal for the game designers. They literally DO NOT CARE at all about balance. You want a balanced game. Start coming together to make better rules we can all agree on.

That's not balance, that's forcing equivalence. Toss the same amount of points worth the things that Ultras have best support for on the table for an entire game instead and compare from there. The nice thing about these strategies is that they influence factions that are otherwise just pallet swaps of each other to actually embrace a play style particular to the supposed faction. You cannot demand direct equivalence between datasheets and achieve that.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets just see here.

An Iron Hands speeder costs the same as an Ultras speeder

Turn1 - The ironhands can move and shoot with no pentaly, rerolls 1's with all its weapons, and can even fall back and shoot without pentalty, and has a 6+ FNP and overwatches on 5's.

Ultras speeder on turn 2 move and and shoot without penalty but suffers penalty for falling back and shooting. All of this at -1 AP due to doctrines changing over to tactical.

This is balanced? No...these kinds of unbalance shouldn't even make it past the brainstorming stage but they managed to make it past probably 5 more more serious steps of balancing before sending to print. Unblanace such as this is a clear indicator of balance not even being a goal for the game designers. They literally DO NOT CARE at all about balance. You want a balanced game. Start coming together to make better rules we can all agree on.

That's not balance, that's forcing equivalence. Toss the same amount of points worth the things that Ultras have best support for on the table for an entire game instead and compare from there. The nice thing about these strategies is that they influence factions that are otherwise just pallet swaps of each other to actually embrace a play style particular to the supposed faction. You cannot demand direct equivalence between datasheets and achieve that.

Toss the same points of Iyanden on the table as Iyanden vs same list as Uthwe, and Uthwe wins.
Toss the same points of Uthwe on the table as Uthwe vs same list as Iyanden, and Uthwe wins.

Sometimes, CTs are tradeoffs where different factions are better for different builds. Other times, you have some CTs that feel downright inferior to other CTs in the same book. The common complaint in the SM book seems to be "UM < IH", but there are more obvious examples.

Heavy weapons suffer penalty for moving and shooting. Ultramarines Super doctrine specifically states it does not take effect if you fall back from combat. So you count as moving if you fall back from combat as ultramarines. Ironhand's super doctrine does not state this.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Heavy weapons suffer penalty for moving and shooting. Ultramarines Super doctrine specifically states it does not take effect if you fall back from combat. So you count as moving if you fall back from combat as ultramarines. Ironhand's super doctrine does not state this.

Provided you're not running a heavy flamer

Its probably called super doctrine for a reason.


I also suggest to form a fan based edition with rule changes such as those in the links. Would be a lot harder take than this but the results might be satisfying and offer some players better gaming environment. People also seem to like tinkering their own rules and being authorities in that regrard.

In fact, this is something GW have encouraged the customers from the beginning.

Amai wrote:
Its probably called super doctrine for a reason.


I also suggest to form a fan based edition with rule changes such as those in the links. Would be a lot harder take than this but the results might be satisfying and offer some players better gaming environment. People also seem to like tinkering their own rules and being authorities in that regrard.

In fact, this is something GW have encouraged the customers from the beginning.

I couldn't agree more - GW is certainly encouraging me to play my ultramarines with Ironhands rules.

On "super doctrines" it's basically the name we have all given the special benefit you get from each chapter for being in their "preferred" doctrine. One is clearly more super than the other.

But shouldnt ultrmarines be like the, ultimate chapter ?

Maybe you should reforge their super doctrine as an ultimate doctrine.

The idea that you can balance the game with points cost alone is flawed from the start. As long as
1.) There are things that are point free that change the value of units.
2.) Units change value from sub-faction to subfaction
3.) Unit synergies exist

You cannot balance using points alone at least not internal to a specific book.
The best you can do is balance builds from one codex to another based on the strongest possible choices for every unit being made.

Amai wrote:
But shouldnt ultrmarines be like the, ultimate chapter ?

Maybe you should reforge their super doctrine as an ultimate doctrine.

Ultra is a misnomer and everything weve read about the Ultramarines being the pinnacle of what a space marine chapter should be is a lie. Ironhands are the Ultra chapter. For Gorgon!

No they are not! For ultima!

Flesh is weak duty is eternal.

Xeno has your complaint transitioned from "Ultramarines are weak, but still the strongest Chapter only because of a crutch Girlyman" to "IH are so absolutely bonkers strong that now I'm sad because my Ultras aren't as strong anymore"?

Which is kinda ridiculous isn't it? Ultras were strong pre codex 2.0 and are only stronger now. You should be happy that your precious Ultras are even more competitive, not lamenting the fact that another Chapter might be slightly more efficient.

Breng77 wrote:
The idea that you can balance the game with points cost alone is flawed from the start. As long as
1.) There are things that are point free that change the value of units.
2.) Units change value from sub-faction to subfaction
3.) Unit synergies exist

You cannot balance using points alone at least not internal to a specific book.
The best you can do is balance builds from one codex to another based on the strongest possible choices for every unit being made.

No one is suggesting a "points alone" balance. Synergy should be limited from a rules design stand point.
If faction A can only deal x damage on turn 1 with the most obvious combo then faction B should be limited to roughly the same amount of damage. Same can be said for defensive combos in the amount they can reduce damage. It is very simple really. Comparable units should do comparable things. Subfactions should not affect unit stats in any major way ie. Should not increase damage or defensive characteristics in a reliable way. Maybe just give them a special ability.

Bharring wrote:

Toss the same points of Iyanden on the table as Iyanden vs same list as Uthwe, and Uthwe wins.
Toss the same points of Uthwe on the table as Uthwe vs same list as Iyanden, and Uthwe wins.

Sometimes, CTs are tradeoffs where different factions are better for different builds. Other times, you have some CTs that feel downright inferior to other CTs in the same book. The common complaint in the SM book seems to be "UM < IH", but there are more obvious examples.

Hence me talking specifically about IH and UM, rather than other things. I entirely agree that the eldar ones could use considerably more thought and I hope even if they don't get splatted out like space marines have they get updated to closer parity.

That said, there is nothing inherently wrong with a trait improving different units for different subfaction, as long as you keep the variance within a reasonable scale of power for a thematic list and limit the more blatant abuses.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Xeno has your complaint transitioned from "Ultramarines are weak, but still the strongest Chapter only because of a crutch Girlyman" to "IH are so absolutely bonkers strong that now I'm sad because my Ultras aren't as strong anymore"?

Which is kinda ridiculous isn't it? Ultras were strong pre codex 2.0 and are only stronger now. You should be happy that your precious Ultras are even more competitive, not lamenting the fact that another Chapter might be slightly more efficient.

Strength means nothing at this point as space marines are the only army to be released thus far in this 8.5 edition of 40k we are in or whatever you want to call it. The only things we have to compare it to are the internal strength between different space marine factions. We are basically back at square 1 again 2 years ago with space marine codex being released first. Remains to be seen what the power level of codex coming out are going to be like. If it's anything like the internal balance demonstrated in this supplements we might as well save our hopes for a balanced edition as GW has failed YET AGAIN. The difference between Ultras and Ironhands compared to 8.0 eddition and 8.5 eddition is laughable. Gman Ultras vs Ironhands a few months ago was a pretty close matchup - currently in 8.5 edition Ultras are obliterated by ironands in an not even close battle.

I have an idea, i know it sounds silly but really, think about it. Why not let both players start?


Xenomancer you do realise they do it on purpose ?

Reason why iron hands are strong is to sell vehicles. Next chapter is going crazy on infantry i suppose.


After the vehicles have been sold they are going to say ok this was too powerful and tune it down and after that what happens ?

To do it with seperate chapters and a single relic is enginious as it wont affect anything else in the game and is easy to tune down without touching the core rules.


I give you the ultra doctrine: here it is, re roll to hit rolls of 1 in all 3 doctrines!

Amai wrote:
Reason why iron hands are strong is to sell vehicles. Next chapter is going crazy on infantry i suppose.

After the vehicles have been sold they are going to say ok this was too powerful and tune it down and after that what happens ?

The theory that GW designs rules to sell stuff always suffers with running into flops. I mean SM were pretty bad through 8th before this codex and the chapters, so not sure what they were doing there.

Balance is really about getting things *close enough* rather than perfect. This can be achieved through points determining internal balancing (damage output/resilience) and then by vaguely thinking about free stuff.

Chapter specific stratagems should almost certainly go, then tactic, warlord trait and relics could be considered in a pool. Some might be marginally better - but providing its not a massive gap (Alaitoc to "not Ulthwe" being an example - Alpha Legion to Word Bearers is another) things should be close enough.

The issue is less "this isn't mathematically optimal" and more "this is mathematically trash, you should never use this." Chapter Approved moving points around has certainly helped, even if the situation isn't perfect.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The idea that you can balance the game with points cost alone is flawed from the start. As long as
1.) There are things that are point free that change the value of units.
2.) Units change value from sub-faction to subfaction
3.) Unit synergies exist

You cannot balance using points alone at least not internal to a specific book.
The best you can do is balance builds from one codex to another based on the strongest possible choices for every unit being made.

No one is suggesting a "points alone" balance. Synergy should be limited from a rules design stand point.

OP:

Amai wrote:
[...]
So, i suggest to use this thread to focus or rebalance the game keeping other changes than point cost changes at minimum. So no changing the rules or inventing new ones but to keep the game as it is.[...]

Automatically Appended Next Post:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Toss the same points of Iyanden on the table as Iyanden vs same list as Uthwe, and Uthwe wins.
Toss the same points of Uthwe on the table as Uthwe vs same list as Iyanden, and Uthwe wins.

Sometimes, CTs are tradeoffs where different factions are better for different builds. Other times, you have some CTs that feel downright inferior to other CTs in the same book. The common complaint in the SM book seems to be "UM < IH", but there are more obvious examples.

Hence me talking specifically about IH and UM, rather than other things. I entirely agree that the eldar ones could use considerably more thought and I hope even if they don't get splatted out like space marines have they get updated to closer parity.

That said, there is nothing inherently wrong with a trait improving different units for different subfaction, as long as you keep the variance within a reasonable scale of power for a thematic list and limit the more blatant abuses.

The attempted frameshift was because we've seen a gakton of talk about IH vs UM, and there's some debate that they're just *different*. IH makes you more durable, better at dakka, etc, but UM lets you "Marine" more - where you shoot, fight, fallback, and shoot. I don't agree with that, but figured comparing two traits both geared for the same thing might avoid those conversations. Perhaps I should have avoided CWE, but the idea was to use a less emotionally-charged pair of subfactions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Gman Ultras vs Ironhands a few months ago was a pretty close matchup

Saywhat?

Pre-new-codex, Gman Ultras dominated the Marine book. It was nearly Tourny-capable. Iron Hands were barely a footnote. Nowhere close.

I do also encourage to do a different approach as a different project where rules are altered as anyone likes.

The way i see this, only couple of units get a slight point change and few relics cost more cp. That is all there is to this. Changing further is for different thread.

The idea is to encourage various play styles and keep the game as it is.

Amai wrote:
I have an idea, i know it sounds silly but really, think about it. Why not let both players start?


Xenomancer you do realise they do it on purpose ?

Reason why iron hands are strong is to sell vehicles. Next chapter is going crazy on infantry i suppose.


After the vehicles have been sold they are going to say ok this was too powerful and tune it down and after that what happens ?

To do it with seperate chapters and a single relic is enginious as it wont affect anything else in the game and is easy to tune down without touching the core rules.


I give you the ultra doctrine: here it is, re roll to hit rolls of 1 in all 3 doctrines!

Any sort of "UltraMarines are the Ultra Marine" concept isn't that UltraMarines are the "most powerful"/"most competitive". Fluffwise, it's that they're the "most Marine". Iron Hands might outlast them. Raven Guard might be better at deploying. Sallies might be better with Flamers and Meltas. Imperial Fists might be better at pitched battles.. Blood Angels might be better with a chainsword. But UltraMarines are better at combining it all into a single effective fighting force. They're better at adapting. They're better at using all the pieces together. When they get out-lasted by an opponent, they'll outdeploy. When they get outdeployed, they'll outlast. When they're facing absurd shortrange firepower, they'll besiege the enemy. When besieged, they'll get in close and much things up.

Using the right tool at the right time is a Marine thing. Every chapter does it. UltraMarines do it best.

*That* is what the rules should support for UltraMarines.

(Until the army goes full-Primaris, where "most Marine" simply means "MOAR BETTAH".)

 Xenomancers wrote:
No one is suggesting a "points alone" balance. Synergy should be limited from a rules design stand point.
If faction A can only deal x damage on turn 1 with the most obvious combo then faction B should be limited to roughly the same amount of damage. Same can be said for defensive combos in the amount they can reduce damage. It is very simple really. Comparable units should do comparable things. Subfactions should not affect unit stats in any major way ie. Should not increase damage or defensive characteristics in a reliable way. Maybe just give them a special ability.

While not wrong, you have to be very careful not to make your game incredibly dull by removing the synergies from it.

So my 2 cents is start with a 10 point guardsmen to set a precedent for point values. Build up from there, the 10 pppm start point is to make sure there's no single digits point value for models (so maybe a 10 point conscript). It will change the point value we play at, but I think this is where we need to start. I'd also advocate for nothing being free full stop. Lasgun minimum 1 point, maybe a 9 point guardsmen but total is 10.

Ideally then each unit can be looked at on a case by case basis. After a guardsmen we can look at say a guardian. It's got better armour, and BS, etc add X points and so one and so forth. Terminators for example are slower so reduce by X points.

Might not be a perfect idea but that's my though process. At the very least I know people can get behind the 10 point guardsmen for granularity

Please do take that idea further by starting with non forge world imperial guard for example.

So scout sentinel would be around 100 pts and marines around 30 pts.

That will surely give flexibility to alter the points further.


How would command points far in this ? They cost points too ?


To make that work i suppose one would need a thorough understanding of this game.


So granades and armor would cost too.

This reminds me of shrapnel games steel panther where you cn add your own unit entries and run them through a program called cost calculator. Its still unbalanced though as different setups and specialisation results in stronger armies for their points.

Put all options in one unit and end up with overcosted unit. That setup strongly favours spesialisation, so no granades or 6+ armor and only lasgun (10 pts ?) must be more point efficient than with granades, armor and lasgun (12 pts) ?


Btw, if you are really in to it, do a 40k mod for steel panthers. There have been a star wars mod under development for a long time and i suspect it never finishes. I think the game might offer tools to do this even in the free version already.

This would be beat done on n edition with armor values (6th or 5th ?) as steel panther mechnisms work like that already.

Both games are respective kings of their genre.

Amai wrote:



To make that work i suppose one would need a thorough understanding of this game.

The irony is killing me.

Fan made fixes go from the ludicrously op "my favourite faction deserves the best" to the incredibly dull "just make every army a different colour of the same thing". If you like, I can share a codex I wrote when I was 12 for 2nd edition - hint, it wasn't very balanced!

Whatever mud people chuck at GW, they have been incredibly successful at (mostly) keeping the game balanced enough over time whilst retaining the sense of narrative. They do better than all other companies at keeping a middle ground between competitive and casual. I absolutely love the new SM rules for instance, they feel like marines should for the first time in 8th. I would rather play with those rules and self limit on power level, so I the game is fun, than play some dull 5th ed type game of different coloured S4 T4. Can apply this to almost all other factions, since we moved to 8th, as all my armies are more interesting than they used to be (and I have large forces of CWE, Nids, GSC, Ad Mech and Knights).

Share please.

I also think 8ed marines are the most interesting. I also like 8ed as a whole.


What was 2 edition like ? I have read only good things about it.

Amai wrote:
I have seen people write here that the game is unbalanced (in a way it seems like a marketing campain for certain models) and some people do not like that aspect on otherwise great game.

I have also seen a person to say he could rebalance the game but takes no action for it.


So, i suggest to use this thread to focus or rebalance the game keeping other changes than point cost changes at minimum. So no changing the rules or inventing new ones but to keep the game as it is. I do not own or have acces to any of the rule books so i cannot fully participate but i take the initiative to suggest this.

I am also aware that tweaking the game usually makes it in fact worse, but i still suggest and hope that instead of endlessly talk about it, rather do something constructive. If this goes to anything i might participate in the future.


One idea would be also to attach custom made material (units, relics, factions, chapters and so) in the same way than forge world models without affecting the core.

Adhering to your restriction of not changing rules, or creating new ones, I do not think it is possible to balance 40k. To be balanced, let alone tactically deep, the game needs a rewrite. Homogenizing the game even more could create balance, but this would require more than points changes, and I wouldn't find such a game fun to play. I think most players would agree with me on this.

The core rules simply are not complex enough to provide a balanced, deep, stimulating experience with a high number of different armies and units.

Ultramarines!

They are the one and you know it.


So what is the best scifi miniatures battle game ?

 fraser1191 wrote:
So my 2 cents is start with a 10 point guardsmen to set a precedent for point values. Build up from there, the 10 pppm start point is to make sure there's no single digits point value for models (so maybe a 10 point conscript). It will change the point value we play at, but I think this is where we need to start. I'd also advocate for nothing being free full stop. Lasgun minimum 1 point, maybe a 9 point guardsmen but total is 10.

Ideally then each unit can be looked at on a case by case basis. After a guardsmen we can look at say a guardian. It's got better armour, and BS, etc add X points and so one and so forth. Terminators for example are slower so reduce by X points.

Might not be a perfect idea but that's my though process. At the very least I know people can get behind the 10 point guardsmen for granularity

I think this is fine and, indeed, was used in 2nd ed.

Imperial guard squads were 100pts for 10 men, marine tactical squads were 300pts for 10.

Back then though, gretchin were basically crappier guardsmen, with S\T 3 so they are close to the same Price.

With them being so crappy now, you probably want to start with their stats as baseline.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
No one is suggesting a "points alone" balance. Synergy should be limited from a rules design stand point.
If faction A can only deal x damage on turn 1 with the most obvious combo then faction B should be limited to roughly the same amount of damage. Same can be said for defensive combos in the amount they can reduce damage. It is very simple really. Comparable units should do comparable things. Subfactions should not affect unit stats in any major way ie. Should not increase damage or defensive characteristics in a reliable way. Maybe just give them a special ability.

While not wrong, you have to be very careful not to make your game incredibly dull by removing the synergies from it.

Here for me is an example of a cool synergy. Tiggy -1 to hit ability combined with +1 T to make a unit tough to kill. It only works on 1 unit and your opponent can just target something else. Plus realistically it has counters - str 10 with rerolls to hit counters it pretty well.

An example of a bad synergy is the eldar quicken ability / combined with 22 inch auto advance / combined with advance and charge stratagem/ combined with the ability to move again after killing a unit from ynnari. Plus protect to make a unit of spears nearly indestructible combined with an on demand -1 to hit and 5+ FNP from fortune...you have here an example of too much synergy. Practically 0 ability to counter as the unit can move 44 inches and charge.

Another bad synergy would be choas ability to shoot twice with multiple buffs going off at once to basically make it 2's with rerolls auto annihilating things...probably twice. Or a smash captain putting out 18 damage 4 attacks for like 130 points and a bunch of CP.

Frankly combos like that ruin the game for me.

To keep things interesting I think armies should have an identity and be better at something based on that identity. For example eldar should be fast and deal death blows...but they shouldn't be indestructible. Ironhands probably should be tougher than your average marine but their tanks shouldn't be THAT much more survivable. It is true that strats and abilities are out of hand - these things need to be reeled in just as much as points need to be balanced for comparable units.

NM

Amai wrote:

So what is the best scifi miniatures battle game ?

Two answers, pick one (or both)

1) The miniatures game YOU like most.

2) Probably Battletech (core game only.)
* Except for a few minor tweaks it's had a mostly stable rule set going on 35 yeas now. You don't get radical shifts in BT.
* It plays well with 2 - virtually any # of players, all in the same game.
* It's affordable - only a handful of the oldest miniatures are expensive. And by expensive I mean about equal to a current 10 man 40k/AoS box.

Battletec seems way worse than 40k based on a quick glance on the quick start rules.


40k is the best. Say it with me i know you want to.

Mordhaim is best, necromunda is beat, old hammer is best. Games workshop rule.

Probably even bfg is best.

ccs wrote:

Amai wrote:

So what is the best scifi miniatures battle game ?

Two answers, pick one (or both)

1) The miniatures game YOU like most.

2) Probably Battletech (core game only.)
* Except for a few minor tweaks it's had a mostly stable rule set going on 35 yeas now. You don't get radical shifts in BT.
* It plays well with 2 - virtually any # of players, all in the same game.
* It's affordable - only a handful of the oldest miniatures are expensive. And by expensive I mean about equal to a current 10 man 40k/AoS box.

Clan mechs OP, and all my favorite Inner Sphere designs aren't in the game anymore because they were stolen. Also designing your own mechs, while fun, super abuseable. Hah!

Also much slower paced game in my experience.

 Insectum7 wrote:

ccs wrote:

Amai wrote:

So what is the best scifi miniatures battle game ?

Two answers, pick one (or both)

1) The miniatures game YOU like most.

2) Probably Battletech (core game only.)
* Except for a few minor tweaks it's had a mostly stable rule set going on 35 yeas now. You don't get radical shifts in BT.
* It plays well with 2 - virtually any # of players, all in the same game.
* It's affordable - only a handful of the oldest miniatures are expensive. And by expensive I mean about equal to a current 10 man 40k/AoS box.

Clan mechs OP, and all my favorite Inner Sphere designs aren't in the game anymore because they were stolen. Also designing your own mechs, while fun, super abuseable. Hah!

Also much slower paced game in my experience.

Clan Mechs: As I said, core game only. But equal if everyone uses either all IS or all Clan. The OP only occurs IS vs Clan.
Your favorite mechs: Are still in the game, just not their art. Though I think even that's been resolved. (makes no difference though because all your old stuff is 100% compatible with the current. This ain't 40k where the rules completely shift wildly each edition)
Abuseable: Oh sure, you could abuse the design rules. But you couldn't do anything the other guy couldn't. So.... Balanced.
Slower paced: Sort of..... We've always found about 8 mech game takes about the same amount of time as an average 40k game.

Amai wrote:
I have seen people write here that the game is unbalanced (in a way it seems like a marketing campain for certain models) and some people do not like that aspect on otherwise great game.

I have also seen a person to say he could rebalance the game but takes no action for it.


So, i suggest to use this thread to focus or rebalance the game keeping other changes than point cost changes at minimum. So no changing the rules or inventing new ones but to keep the game as it is. I do not own or have acces to any of the rule books so i cannot fully participate but i take the initiative to suggest this.

I am also aware that tweaking the game usually makes it in fact worse, but i still suggest and hope that instead of endlessly talk about it, rather do something constructive. If this goes to anything i might participate in the future.


One idea would be also to attach custom made material (units, relics, factions, chapters and so) in the same way than forge world models without affecting the core.

I bolded that because you have
determined how to balance the game
through points changes

yet you might not have read the book?

again, my idea is USRs tilted in the direction of one faction or another as they apply to that faction.
So everyone would in principle have access to jump assault troops,
but eldar would be really fast and orks would hit really hard.

If one looks at the game from above,
with every faction represented by an oval,
then we should see something of a color-wheel of ovals arranged like flower petals
each partially overlapping with the others in the center.

from this metalevel view, the game can appear balanced
even as each faction has something that others do not.

then, there are things like free stuff with painful rules.
how to interpret and integrate these rules into the flower
without causing an imbalance is work that is left to the hobbyist.

Sure would like to see someone do something but people tend to only talk.

Fantasy battle genre is different in this regard, there is lots of custom rule sets and at least i know none in 40k. I am trying to inspire people to do even one. No matter what kind but i like the original rules as they are, but some units are clearly overcosted like many people say that stompa is for example.

I also suspect that 40k hav always had stronger rule base and balance than fantasy battles and the need for custom rules have only risen recently.

People only talk because no matter how good they did it. No matter how much time placed into us balancing the game. It wouldn't be from GW and would at that point be a waste of time as no one would ever use it. As borked as the system can be, it's a well known game and for most players they will always choose the devil you know over the devil you don't.

Hell we had to have a huge thing over if or not people would even play against legends because GW said they wouldn't recommend them for tournaments. How much hope do you honestly have people would embrace a balance path no matter how good it is unless it comes direct from them ?

Tournaments get away with it because they have popularity and name recognition on their side as being impartial. Random musing from people on the net, no matter how good or well meaning will go no where. That is why people aren't going to work on it in one thread. It's a long term investment that no one will consider.

It's an issue GW should fix but for various reasons doesn't care and so the train carries on and on till the game dies out. I mean, they didn't dream up of a way to save fantasy, they just destroyed it and made it a variation on 40k.

Now I'm not saying 40k is any where near dying, I'm speaking of the inevitable end that all games will face one day.

I would say, as a generalisation, the rules need to be deeper.

A straight move to D12's is easy and basically doubles the functional range of the rules. it's the same as being able to make marines S & T 4.5 with a 2.5+ save.

An increase in general modifiers to hit can be implemented then, without the risk of everything ending up hitting on 6's or 2's. Long range, large target, smoke, cover, fast moving targets, scopes, short range, stealth. An increase in the things that can affect you will allow things to be better balanced. As it is, you get 2 modifiers in the same direction and a "meh" unit which hits on a 4+ is instead hitting on a 2+, the best in the game. Instead, a unit which hits on an 8+ on a D12 (statistically the same as a 4+ on a D6) would be hitting on a 6+ with 2 modifiers, the same as hitting on a 3+ now.

I think modifiers in the To Wound section need to apply as well, with weapons getting bonuses against their designated targets and targets getting bonuses for their defensive measures.

EG Anti-vehicle gets +5 to wound a vehicle, Tank armour dishes out a -3 to wound them (result = +2 to wound a tank with anti-tank guns). Anti-infantry guns get +4 to wound infantry, power armour gives -3 to wound them with anti-infantry weapons, so only +1 to wound marines (whereas guardsmen will get mown down somewhat).


I feel more modifiers and bigger dice would go a long way to making it balanceable. As it is, moving a result by 1 is too much, and some armies can move results by 3 or 4! out of 6 possible results!


Old fantasy acknowledged he need for more range of values - they had a chart for hitting which went up to 11+ to hit! (6+ followed by 2+, 6+ followed by 3+, etc.) Even bringing this back, but centred (EG -1+ to hit through to 9+ to hit) would give 40k room to breathe a little.

You could keep the D6 system if they moved from a failure and success on D6, and use a D6+modifier against a target.
Bring back initiative as a target to beat, with armor a similar stat.
Maybe Feel no pain as a bonus against light weapons ? Not perfect on its own. But possibly a good compromise over switch the type of dice 40k uses.

 some bloke wrote:
I would say, as a generalisation, the rules need to be deeper.

A straight move to D12's is easy and basically doubles the functional range of the rules. it's the same as being able to make marines S & T 4.5 with a 2.5+ save.

An increase in general modifiers to hit can be implemented then, without the risk of everything ending up hitting on 6's or 2's. Long range, large target, smoke, cover, fast moving targets, scopes, short range, stealth. An increase in the things that can affect you will allow things to be better balanced. As it is, you get 2 modifiers in the same direction and a "meh" unit which hits on a 4+ is instead hitting on a 2+, the best in the game. Instead, a unit which hits on an 8+ on a D12 (statistically the same as a 4+ on a D6) would be hitting on a 6+ with 2 modifiers, the same as hitting on a 3+ now.

I think modifiers in the To Wound section need to apply as well, with weapons getting bonuses against their designated targets and targets getting bonuses for their defensive measures.

EG Anti-vehicle gets +5 to wound a vehicle, Tank armour dishes out a -3 to wound them (result = +2 to wound a tank with anti-tank guns). Anti-infantry guns get +4 to wound infantry, power armour gives -3 to wound them with anti-infantry weapons, so only +1 to wound marines (whereas guardsmen will get mown down somewhat).


I feel more modifiers and bigger dice would go a long way to making it balanceable. As it is, moving a result by 1 is too much, and some armies can move results by 3 or 4! out of 6 possible results!


Old fantasy acknowledged he need for more range of values - they had a chart for hitting which went up to 11+ to hit! (6+ followed by 2+, 6+ followed by 3+, etc.) Even bringing this back, but centred (EG -1+ to hit through to 9+ to hit) would give 40k room to breathe a little.

That's not depth, it's complexity. You're forcing a bunch of people to go out and buy several dozen new dice on average for not a lot of actual depth. The rules for 7th melee were complex, but they weren't deep, it basically boiled down to the game taking ownership of your models after you declare a charge, that's shallow complexity because a better or a worse player will have the exact same result. When the difference in effectiveness between using an anti-tank weapon against a Terminator and a tank isn't astronomical it actually creates depth because you have to value whether it might be worth it to go down on effectiveness because one target is more important to the mission or the survival of the army than the average effectiveness of your weapons, if you just boil everything down to rock-paper-scissors it does not become more deep. So it'd be more complex, therefore harder to balance which results in a less balanced experience that is more often decided in the list-building phase, something most people hate. Balance also helps create depth because if a unit isn't so OP that it's good against everything you're actually making more choices. The only grounds for increasing complexity or lowering balance should be for making the game more cinematic, like what you could argue Chapter Tactics do.

 ewar wrote:
Forgive me for saying this, but the OP is being hopelessly naive to think that this could be done in a single thread.

It wouldnt even be done because of OP. If someone does it its because they wanted to, not because they read the OP and thought "Ill give it a shot"

He should have instead asked to if anyone knows any balanced rulesets, not to just make it up on the spot


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

Amai wrote:
Reason why iron hands are strong is to sell vehicles. Next chapter is going crazy on infantry i suppose.

After the vehicles have been sold they are going to say ok this was too powerful and tune it down and after that what happens ?

The theory that GW designs rules to sell stuff always suffers with running into flops. I mean SM were pretty bad through 8th before this codex and the chapters, so not sure what they were doing there.

Balance is really about getting things *close enough* rather than perfect. This can be achieved through points determining internal balancing (damage output/resilience) and then by vaguely thinking about free stuff.

Chapter specific stratagems should almost certainly go, then tactic, warlord trait and relics could be considered in a pool. Some might be marginally better - but providing its not a massive gap (Alaitoc to "not Ulthwe" being an example - Alpha Legion to Word Bearers is another) things should be close enough.

The issue is less "this isn't mathematically optimal" and more "this is mathematically trash, you should never use this." Chapter Approved moving points around has certainly helped, even if the situation isn't perfect.

One: SM had the first codex to be released. First codex will always end up being crap when compared to the all the later codexes
Two: GW is a whole is idiotic. Their rules designers. fluff writers, PR team, etc are all insane. They have some kind of weird psychosis and because of it GW can never get anything right. Even when they release a cool model, rules or fluff there will always, ALWAYS be something about it that makes me want to facepalm so hard that I could knock myself out. At this point, its not even just me. I noticed that more and more people are seeing GW for what it is- a company sized meme for failure.

If I didnt like 40k so damn much before they started pushing the story forwards, I wouldnt evem give these guys a second thought

1st step towards balance in 40k as it exists is to move it to d8/d10 system to allow for bigger design space.

 skchsan wrote:
1st step towards balance in 40k as it exists is to move it to d8/d10 system to allow for bigger design space.

How does it fix anything? It fixes literally nothing, you'll still have just as many OP and UP units. How does a bigger design space balance anything?

 vict0988 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
1st step towards balance in 40k as it exists is to move it to d8/d10 system to allow for bigger design space.

How does it fix anything? It fixes literally nothing, you'll still have just as many OP and UP units. How does a bigger design space balance anything?

Greater granularity and smaller increments allow for a more room for adjustments. Currently, its difficult to re-stat a unit without letting it step on another's toes.

This goes all the time on sidetracks, please if you want to support this project list the overcosted or undercosted units and i promise i make a compilation of them. I will search for relics and strategems myself as i have acces to them through internet.

This is a start and more than nothing.

All the musings may as well be in this thread but is not what this is all about.


The final attempt would be a seperate pdf or text file. Changes will be light so it is easy to use and the gameplay is unaffected so there is nothing to remember during the game, absolutely zero new things.

If someone is interested i suggest to open a new thread for the one with all the changes (that will probably never be completed)

And my claim is that simple reshuffling of rules, wargear and points is not enough to "balance" the game.

You can houserule to ban the obvious outliers in the game if you dont want new rules and minimal pt change as your "balance".

A list of OP/undercosted unit does not bring about balance, let alone something that remotely resembles it.

 skchsan wrote:
Greater granularity and smaller increments allow for a more room for adjustments. Currently, its difficult to re-stat a unit without letting it step on another's toes.

Re-statting a unit does not balance that unit. Let's say you gave Assault Squads 0,5 extra strength (because +1 Strength would be absolutely insane right...?), this only balances things if the units cost is balanced after the change, cost is literally the only thing that matters in terms of whether a unit is balanced. Cents were bad, they got another wound. But it's still the pts to effectiveness rate that will determine whether they are competitive, not whether they get 0,5 or 1 extra wounds. Stats should represent the fluff or the desired play experience, like how many lasgun shots do the designers think it should take to kill a Tactical Marine, pts is the only thing that determines whether that Tactical Marine is worth it compared to Infantry Squads. You cannot and should not try to balance everything with stats, why not just change the pts and get it over with? Why would you rather keep the pts constant than the rules constant?

The dice system change has to occur in tandem with changes to rules, points, etc.

As I've stated, the move to a new dice system is a START, not end all.

In essence, the 40k system has to be uprooted and start anew. There are companies that make great games and miniatures to go with it. On the other hand, GW makes great miniatures with a poor game. The focal point is just different thats all. They are miniature company first, game developer second.

It might be something to explore balancing mechanisms beyond re-jigging all the stats, because however you change those you're still playing the same 2D game of lethality vs durability. My suggestion would be to make board control more of a thing as that requires lots of bodies, or mobility. Indeed, that's something I like about Maelstrom is that you need to be able to either cover all the objectives with bodies for a nice, wide push, or be able to scootch a fast unit over.

There's plenty you can do with missions to set up balance. Take Maelstrom, for instance. You could have players pick the missions they want to accomplish out of a specific total of VPs. You could structure the board and objectives so that you have specific paths of attack and so on.

Nurglitch wrote:
It might be something to explore balancing mechanisms beyond re-jigging all the stats, because however you change those you're still playing the same 2D game of lethality vs durability. My suggestion would be to make board control more of a thing as that requires lots of bodies, or mobility. Indeed, that's something I like about Maelstrom is that you need to be able to either cover all the objectives with bodies for a nice, wide push, or be able to scootch a fast unit over.

There's plenty you can do with missions to set up balance. Take Maelstrom, for instance. You could have players pick the missions they want to accomplish out of a specific total of VPs. You could structure the board and objectives so that you have specific paths of attack and so on.

This is something I've been thinking as well. Similar to warcry's predetermined map settings, there should be standard maps to facilitate a balanced board.

Honestly, I think 40k is beyond saving. GW have allowed it to be come far too big. There isn't one single issue with it, but rather a lot of issues that just cause more issues when put along side each other.

GW's constant need to add new models/units when ever a faction gets a new codex at the expense of downgrading previous models/units has created a situation where factions now have a lot of bloat in their model line, and worse have models/units that fulfill the same design/role. I started way back in 2nd edition, Marines as they where back then to what they are now is completely out of sync. GW's sales strategy has created a monster over the decades, and this is before we even start on the core game rules.

The core rules for any 40k edition start off with a planned idea, or aim in mind. As the designers produce more content they diverge from that original aim and end up with rules that don't gell well with what has come before. Even the scale of the game is out of whack, we are seeing more and more things that belong in Epic in 28mm platoon/company conflict game... and the random number generator to determine the scales of difference is a D6, all the while we have super sonic jets performing turns around a small battlefield getting automatically hit by flamethrowers. It is ludicrous.

The games scope has been allowed to grow and grow. The designers are doing the best they can to keep the sales department happy and trying to at the very least give a semblance of balance.

TL/DR, 40k is too broken and bloated to be fixed with simple adjustments. The whole thing needs to be gutted and turned into 2 game systems. A game that sticks to the idea of a platoon/company level, and the other which is essentially Epic.

Other than that I suggest people play One Page Rules, or if they want Marine Vs Marine go play Horus Heresy Betrayal at Calth... because that system is fantastic at representing that.

 stonehorse wrote:
Honestly, I think 40k is beyond saving. GW have allowed it to be come far too big. There isn't one single issue with it, but rather a lot of issues that just cause more issues when put along side each other.

GW's constant need to add new models/units when ever a faction gets a new codex at the expense of downgrading previous models/units has created a situation where factions now have a lot of bloat in their model line, and worse have models/units that fulfill the same design/role. I started way back in 2nd edition, Marines as they where back then to what they are now is completely out of sync. GW's sales strategy has created a monster over the decades, and this is before we even start on the core game rules....

Right. They should've introduced d8/d10 when they launched Escalation. The ultimate turning point of 40k was when plastic baneblade and valkyries came out.

That won't have changed anything

main problem is that whatever changes are made withing the Core Rules, the faction rules stay the same.

even with adding a D10, the profile of Space Marines would have been the same as with D6

and yes, it is easier to just use a different set of rules and add lists for 40k factions than to try to solve the problems the game has

 skchsan wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
1st step towards balance in 40k as it exists is to move it to d8/d10 system to allow for bigger design space.

How does it fix anything? It fixes literally nothing, you'll still have just as many OP and UP units. How does a bigger design space balance anything?

Greater granularity and smaller increments allow for a more room for adjustments. Currently, its difficult to re-stat a unit without letting it step on another's toes.

I think that's a bit of a trap. On the one hand, you do get more granularity from a D8 or D10 than a D6. On the other hand, 40K already has far more granularity with its current system than many competitors- number of attacks, rolling to hit, rolling to wound, rolling to beat armor, rolling for damage, invuln saves, mortal wounds, and FNP all provide ample design space for varying the lethality and durability of a unit.

The problem is that virtually all the statistics come down to lethality and durability. Being able to insert another value between the current BS4+ for regular humans and BS3+ for elites might add a convenient middle ground for armies like Tau, but it's still just another variation of 'how well does this kill stuff'. You can already balance that with points costs alone.

If 40K had more of an emphasis on mobility, morale, C&C, reconnaissance, reactions, terrain, or other mechanisms outside the simplistic damage/durability paradigm, then that would constitute additional design space.

Games like Team Yankee can be mechanically simpler than 40K while still having deeper design space, because a squadron of IFVs and a unit of infantry behave vastly different from one another, and the way they interact with the board and other units is vastly different despite comparable armament.

Ok here is the first version of this rule set:


UNIVERSAL:
-Everyone may gain Relics through Strategems in the same way as Space Marines.
-All Space Marines from different Codexes = 12 pts


CHAOS SPACE MARINES:
-Space Marine = 12 pts
-Chaos Cultist = 4 pts (in all codexes)
-Possessed: -1 pts
-Rubric / Noise Marines: -1 pts
-Daemon Prince: +5 pts (In all codexes)


DEATH GUARD:
-Greater Blight Drone = 200 pts
-Plague Hulk = 195 pts
-Horticulos Slimux = 185 pts
-Beast of Nurgle: -2 pts


DEMONS OF NURGLE:
-Epidemus = +5 pts


ORKS:
-Stompa: -25 pts
-Relic:Killaklaw: -1 CP


SPACE MARINES:
-Rhino: -2 pts
-Drop Pod: -3 pts
-Land Speeders: -2 pts
-Land Raiders: -3 pts
-Stormcannon Array: +2 pts
-Storm Bolter: +0.5 pts
-Hurricane Bolter: +1 pts


ULTRAMARINES:
-Relic:Seal of Oaths = -1 CP


IRON HANDS:
-Feirros = 125 pts
-Relic:Ironstone: -2 CP


BLOOD ANGELS:
-Sanginius Guard: -1 pts


SISTERS OF BATTLE:
-Battle Sisters: -0.5 pts


IMPERIAL GUARD:
-Conscripts = 3.5 pts
-Vox Casters: -1 pts
-Warlord Trait:Superior Tactical Training + Relic:Laurels of Command = -1 CP


IMPERIAL KNIGHTS:
-Relic:Endless Fury = -1 CP
-Relic:Ravager = -1 CP
-Relic:The Paragon Gauntlet = -1 CP
-Relic:Traitor's Pyre = -1 CP
-Relic:Cawl's Wrath = -1 CP


RENEGADE KNIGHTS:
-Relic:Quicksilver Throne of Slaanesh: -1 CP
-Relic:The Diamonas: -1 CP
-Relic:The Gauntlet of Ascension: -1 CP
-Relic:Veil of Medgengard: -1 CP


ELDAR:
-Army with only Lyanden models gain 1 extra CP for each full 1000 pts of army size.
-Dire Avengers: -0.5 pts
-Exarch: +5 pts


TYRANIDS:
-Genestealers: -1 pts
-Lictor: -2 pts


Eldar changes was said to gain opposition. Conscripts, killaklaw, rubric, noise and Ironstone are my own changes, other changes are kept in minimum at first.

Reason i posted this is to show the direction of this project as a format. This is how its going to be, a light addition to use in optional / friendly games.


About Tyranids: Should Malenthrope be +5 pts ?

When i have watched mant battle reports, Genestealers seems quite underwhelming for their points. They tend to die quickly to shooting. Should they be cheaper for -1 pts ?

What about the other HQ choices ? (Suppose some armies might have some re-roll bubles that are "too cheap" ?)

Are there some equipment or weapon options that are overcosted ?


Next im going through Strategems but somehow im not really eager to do anything there.

@ Amai:

I will tell you that your objective is noble, but ultimately fruitless.

For example. I will tell you, as a primary Guard Player, that Infantry Squads should be 5 points per model, or 50 points per unit, to maybe 55 points per unit. I will say that without motive or agenda. In my experience they're worth at least that.

But I will go one further. Infantry squads *Must* take a Special weapon *and* a Heavy Weapon.

At that point, a squad costs at *least* 65 points. With Las/Plas, they start at about 87 ish points? Don't have my rules handy.

The reason for that, is their footprint. The space they take up on the board has value greater than their basic offensive / defensive capabilities. Without upgraded weapons, they're too cheap for what you get regarding space on the board, but too expensive for what you get regarding offensive and defensive output.

At 4 ppm, their defensive value alone is worth much more than that. Their ability to win through attrition is imbalanced.

But charge 8 points per model base, with free Plasma and Lascannon and suddenly they lose that points / board control imbalance.


But let me tell you, maybe, maybe 1/10 people would agree with my assessment. I'm being generous to myself at that.


I honestly believe what I write here. Been playing 20 years, have lots of experience with Guard and how they play (once wrote a series of lengthy articles about it!) and more so the "unseen" strength of board control and the power of attrition the army possesses. That's very hard to math out to someone. They look at killy vs survival, ignore the mobility / board control.

OR! They overestimate the ability to combine orders... which you cant... so while they can fire a million shots each, get a bonus to cover, or move like the wind... they can't do that all in one turn.

Anyhow... put me down as agreeing more-or-less that an Infantry Squad should be worth about 4 PL... armed however you want... or about 85 points including gear.

No its not, look what i have done.

No one else does anything. Here you have it, first version of the optional point balancing rule set. Feel free to use it or tell me why its bad.

It is based on the public opinion.


That suggestion on the Imperial Guard cannot be done as it contradicts with how the rules work. To do that i would have to change the principle of not altering the rules in any way.

I get you. I’m just saying that if you don’t do that, then in my opinion Guardsmen aren’t balanced.

Per your criteria, A squad of 10 Guardsmen should be 55 points. (Or 5.5 pts per model).

 ewar wrote:
I absolutely love the new SM rules for instance, they feel like marines should for the first time in 8th. I would rather play with those rules and self limit on power level, so I the game is fun, than play some dull 5th ed type game of different coloured S4 T4. Can apply this to almost all other factions, since we moved to 8th, as all my armies are more interesting than they used to be (and I have large forces of CWE, Nids, GSC, Ad Mech and Knights).

Did we play the same 5E? My memory is one of an edition that was, aside from IG, dominated by a variety of increasingly divergent and expanding marine armies. This was the edition that introduced Chapter Tactics as we now know them, and the greatest number of new marine units and options until the Primaris reboot. I have a very different memory of "dull 5E different colored S4 T4".

There's lots of stuff to rightly hammer 5E for, but I don't feel boring samey marine army options is one of them.

I will list some key features here for another edition where rules changes are acceptable:

-Moving to larger dice capacity (d8/10/12)
-Moving to larger point costs (2-3x)
-All aspects cost points

-Add more statistics to affect the game such as Initiative.
-Make the difference between anti-infantry and anti-tank fire more clear (as it was in the previous editions)


(Based on disicussion on this thread)


PS: It seems that Kodos have some version of customised rules under consctruction ? (So maybe those kind of suggestions could go to him ?)

PSS: About Flamers hitting Flyers, Greching wounding a Dreadnought and so -> Think of it like Winters does, he tends to find a narrative reason behind those things like, Gretching finding an oil pipe from the kneekap and slicing it open when wounding a Nemesis Dreadnought, and Flyer strifing too close to the ground and flying through putrid acid / filt / flame / whatever (as in game the player can keep the flyers away from units with flamers -> Thus representing the ability to change altitudes so they are not going to be hit by flamers in 40k if they really do not want to, its kind of a matter of positioning thats up to player so -> the plane strifing low and getting lit by a 41st millenium flamer weapon could cause damage. The pilots might not be even aware there are flamers around and for some reason they want to strafe low. Maybe to get a better shot over some target or, there is obscuring smoke, explosions, shrapnel or whatever in the air and it is needed to duck in low to hit the target they are shooting at. To picture the game in motion.)

(As in same thing when hitting a squad that is only seen partially from the cover and stuff -> The battlefield is in motion and the models are peeking / crouching / shooting back and so giving opportunity to fire at them and possibly resulting as casualties and of course, some ammunition might go straight through their cover even, or blast the cover to bits that fall on them)

PSSS: I do not know about 40k but in Fantasy Battles at least there were some really strange, overcomplicated and unneccessary rules which have been dropped off from later editions. Still some of the rules are something i like for example, the Fly High rule from 4-5th edition. In the earliest editions there were rules for 3 different "flight altitudes" for flying models and they affected what kind of models can hit what, how good they can hit, how they can move and so. Changing the altitudes also took turns making the flying models quite complicated in the game. One of the top tings that seem strange in 8th edition 40k is the ability to wound land raiders and so with lasguns. That sounds about as ridiculous as it gets and i fail to find a narrative reason for that. At least in 2th millenia warfare i dont think any Armored Carrier or Vehicle is bothered with small arms fire. This could be altered when changing To Wound chart to represent the one in Fantasy Battles -> If Toughness 2x (or was it more than 2x) Strength it cannot wound.

Those early rules are also understandable if thinking that they probably originate from pen and paper kind of RPG environment.

And scouts are so much better than mini marines that it doesnt make sense theyre 2 pts cheaper per model.

Mini marines should be 11 ppm and scouts at 13 ppm fwiw.

Amai wrote:
Ok here is the first version of this rule set

I won't use that or let my opponent use it in its current version. You missed a tonne of OP options, you also buffed options that did not need to be buffed and nerfed options that did not need to be nerfed. When you miss one of the very overpowered options and nerf the slightly OP option, then the very OP option becomes the only option in town and is relatively less balanced because it has even less competition. You haven't done enough research beyond watching battle reports and reading internet forums to reach a level of quality with your balancing that it's better than just playing with the official rules or makes up for being unofficial.

I really urge you to go seek out the lists that are used in tournaments because the Epidiemus nerf is just weird and the only thing I can imagine having happened is some guy mentioning off-hand how he was powerful in one game, the same thing with the Genestealer nerf, I really don't care whether they died quickly in a battle report when they are one of the most popular Tyranid units they shouldn't be buffed before every other unit, if at all.

Amai wrote:
No its not, look what i have done.

No one else does anything. Here you have it, first version of the optional point balancing rule set. Feel free to use it or tell me why its bad.

It is based on the public opinion.

Ok, I'll tell you why it's bad.

The big one: It's a project focused only on pt changes meant to fix an edition where the actual problem isn't pts but rules. Or lack of rules in some cases. The only result possible with this approach is failure.

It's being written up by someone who by their own admission has only played 1 game this century, several editions ago. Who says they don't have access to the current rules & doesn't appear knowledgeable about them. Well guess what? We arguably already have rules written by unknowledgeable people - GW pays them!

Your project is an endless one. The edition will flip before you get anywhere near finishing it.

Nobody does anything? Not true at all. Groups all over the place have changed rules & pts to suite themselves. Even the tourney scenes made changes to missions.

Public opinion? Hardly. You're trying to change pts values based upon the input of a tiny handful of posters on one webstite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

Amai wrote:
Ok here is the first version of this rule set

You missed a tonne of OP options, you also buffed options that did not need to be buffed and nerfed options that did not need to be nerfed.

Maybe he's auditioning for a job with GW.

If purpose is to give feedback you should point specifically what you mean when saying something is unneccesary, how can i know and improve the list if you do not do that ?

Yes, atm you people are at a priviledged position in the way i have my focus on this thread. Hope you make the best of it.

Genestealers are like ultra marines.


There is not much else i can do without proper feedback, so without it the project is already finished and the current rules are the final ones too.

I have a feeling that vict could help a lot in this by listing the ones mentioned.

If i would have acces to all of the current codexes i could move further on this myself but as it is im kinda doing this blind and asking for guidance.


Hope this wont create bad feelings in a way one wants to use it and the other doesnt making them argue about it.

Expand the dice range so you can have guardsmen feel aa insignificant against a Custode as they should.

Either drop free chapter tactic level nonsense as it destroys balance or point it accordingly. A Templars Executioner is nowhere near worth what an Iron Hand's is

Amai wrote:
If purpose is to give feedback you should point specifically what you mean when saying something is unneccesary, how can i know and improve the list if you do not do that ?

Yes, atm you people are at a priviledged position in the way i have my focus on this thread. Hope you make the best of it.

Genestealers are like ultra marines.


There is not much else i can do without proper feedback, so without it the project is already finished and the current rules are the final ones too.

I have a feeling that vict could help a lot in this by listing the ones mentioned.

About half of all choices in the game need to be changed by at least 10% pts-wise, I don't have a list off the top of my head, we are talking about a project that's going to take dozens of hours to complete with no way to test it beyond what Dakka thinks of the patch. I'll get back to you when I get further, but it might take 6 months and every time new rules, FAQ or Errata are released things might change or get pushed back.

Just throw the first ones that come to your mind, there must be some as you though of it.

Things should be easy, if it isnt its probably not worth it.

You might start by rebalancing points and stop basing points off Space Marines. Make basic Guardsmen 10ppm and rebalance from there.

Increase granularity by moving to a d12 system. There's no realistic argument based on availability any longer so we can quash that ridiculousness. It would be the easiest manner to convert the basics and create more meaningful differences in the basic stats as well as opposed checks.

Amai wrote:
Just throw the first ones that come to your mind, there must be some as you though of it.

Things should be easy, if it isnt its probably not worth it.

OP units: Intercessors, Infiltrators, Aggressors, Assault Centurions, Iron Father Feirros, Scouts, Eliminators, Invictor Warsuits, Thunderfire Cannon, Repulsor Executioner, Stormhawk Interceptor.

OP wargear: Stormcannon arrays, storm bolters, twin boltguns, hurricane bolters, storm shields (other models).

UP units: Assault Squads, Land Speeders, Land Speeder Storms, Land Raiders (every type), Rhinos, Razorbacks, Drop Pods, Terminator Squads (of every variety), Company Champions, Apothecaries.

UP wargear: Dreadnought combat weapons (other models), Dreadnought chainfists, lightning claws (both single and pair), combat shields, grav pistols, grav guns and combi-gravs, flamers.

OP WL traits: Master of Ambush (Raven Guard), Master of Snares (White Scars).

OP Relics: The Ironstone (Iron Hands), Seal of Oath (Ultramarines).

That's first pass on SM, probably a few shouldn't be on any of these lists maybe some of them should be on the opposite list and how far up or down the list each unit and option should be is super hard to say.

 purplkrush wrote:
You might start by rebalancing points and stop basing points off Space Marines. Make basic Guardsmen 10ppm and rebalance from there.

Increase granularity by moving to a d12 system. There's no real argument based on availability any longer so we can quash that ridiculousness. It would be the easiest manner to convert the basics and create more meaningful differences in the basic stats as well as opposed checks.

That's a silly waste of time, you can just make basic Guardsmen 3,8 or 4,7 pts instead of having to inflate everything, nothing wrong with having 1-point increments if you really, really need it. But often you don't, often it's much more imbalanced than that, like the Monolith started out at 381 pts, why? Because 380 was too OP? It was reduced to 320, so clearly not too OP at 381. If a unit is truly OP at 4 pts it can go up to 5 pts and it won't kill it, that's what we saw with Cultists surviving in competitive lists after becoming an extra pt. If it is truly UP at 5 pts it'll be fine at 4 pts.

You're simply not going to have an easier time balancing a more incremental system, it won't happen, you need to start using math, statistics or playtesting you won't suddenly get the feel of the right pts value for units just because they go on a scale with a hundred degrees of separation. Implementing more and bigger dice did not balance Apoc, it's horribly imbalanced because the PL values are off.

381 makes you think its though out even it isnt. Funny but clever.

Using d12 would give you more variety in skill. Using more points of digits as you mentioned could certainly give you more room in pts balance. 0.5 pts have been used as long as i know in fantasy battles (basically with goblin equipment).

In my opinion keeping the poing costs in the same level everybody have used to is good but if there is going to be too much digits the raise would be a good choice.

D2 based warhammer would be hilarious as a game to play drinking, laughing and flipping coins. For one time at least.


Btw what does a decript daccanaut really mean ?

Honestly? GW needs to hire someone like BCB to playtest and proofread their rules if they want even a chance at balance. Fire every single playtester who does the "UGH I CANT BELIEVE THEY WOULD PLAY IT THAT WAY IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT INTENDED TO PLAY LIKE THAT" excuse/eyeroll. The language either allows it or doesn't allow it. If it isn't clear then the instructions are bad. It's pretty hard to balance things if people are playing them differently depending on how you interpret vague language.

Savior protocols is probably one of the better examples for this:
Originally, the rules were vague enough that it was ANY attack and it would be translated into a single mortal wound. This is incredibly strong. Some people argued that attacks resulting in mortal wounds (typically psychic attacks) would treat each mortal wound as an individual attack so 3 MW=3 Drones. Still strong but not nearly as strong as turning smite into 1 MW on a drone. It was then clarified to be only ranged and melee attacks originating from a weapon. (No psychic attacks) Strong with a weakness and most people still assumed mortal wounds required an additional drone (snipers etc) It was then further clarified that additional MW do not require additional drones, but attacks that fail to wound while still causing mortal wounds means you cannot intercept the MW.

None of these clarifications required changing the actual Savior Protocols rules. How do you accurately cost drones if the original rules were vague enough to allow literally all of these interpretations? The first option is OP if drones cost anything less than 15ppm. The last option is strong, but arguably fair at 10ppm given how many things are unblockable by SP. Then, given that almost every Tau unit has access to SP, how do you accurately price their durability with the same vagueness?

Once everyone is playing the same game you can make a pass at balance. Anything before that can be completely destroyed by later clarifications that change the way rules are played without actually changing the text of the rules.

One of the biggest problems with WH is the fact that the include a lot of "free" rules. Sub-faction traits are free rules that are not created equal. Psychic powers are technically free with the psyker, but not all psychic powers are created equal. Same goes for Warlord trait and artifacts.

When those things cost accordingly we can start to cost units more appropriately. Otherwise we are always going to see swings in balance.

 DominayTrix wrote:
Honestly? GW needs to hire someone like BCB to playtest and proofread their rules if they want even a chance at balance. Fire every single playtester who does the "UGH I CANT BELIEVE THEY WOULD PLAY IT THAT WAY IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT INTENDED TO PLAY LIKE THAT" excuse/eyeroll. The language either allows it or doesn't allow it. If it isn't clear then the instructions are bad. It's pretty hard to balance things if people are playing them differently depending on how you interpret vague language.

Savior protocols is probably one of the better examples for this:
Originally, the rules were vague enough that it was ANY attack and it would be translated into a single mortal wound. This is incredibly strong. Some people argued that attacks resulting in mortal wounds (typically psychic attacks) would treat each mortal wound as an individual attack so 3 MW=3 Drones. Still strong but not nearly as strong as turning smite into 1 MW on a drone. It was then clarified to be only ranged and melee attacks originating from a weapon. (No psychic attacks) Strong with a weakness and most people still assumed mortal wounds required an additional drone (snipers etc) It was then further clarified that additional MW do not require additional drones, but attacks that fail to wound while still causing mortal wounds means you cannot intercept the MW.

None of these clarifications required changing the actual Savior Protocols rules. How do you accurately cost drones if the original rules were vague enough to allow literally all of these interpretations? The first option is OP if drones cost anything less than 15ppm. The last option is strong, but arguably fair at 10ppm given how many things are unblockable by SP. Then, given that almost every Tau unit has access to SP, how do you accurately price their durability with the same vagueness?

Once everyone is playing the same game you can make a pass at balance. Anything before that can be completely destroyed by later clarifications that change the way rules are played without actually changing the text of the rules.

It's not that easy, especially not when people want to be misled. Who knows what efforts they have going on, we can agree that it's probably too little, but things slip. A few thousand people are better than any single technical writer/catbug could ever be and an FAQ document is pretty easy to make. For example, there is no such thing as a psychic attack which you seem to imply exists, that's something you made up or took over from a previous edition, that's just what GW has to deal with. Or a sniper hitting a drone, normally, it would do 1 wound with AP- and 1 mortal wound instead it just does 1 mortal wound to the Drones.

The effect GW wanted for Saviour Protocols is also super complex IMO and they have other bodyguard rules that are pretty simple and aura durability buffs that are simple, it's really just a question of putting a tool that's too difficult to learn to use in the hands of hairless monkies and using a natural language that was not engineered to avoid misunderstandings to convey that rule. Think about literal laws for the real world, how they get interpreted and wrung about for political gain, then multiply that by a thousand when Timmy shoots his snipers at a Suit and it only takes one mortal wound. It's not that the rule was badly written, it's that its effect should never have been in the game.

 vict0988 wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:
Honestly? GW needs to hire someone like BCB to playtest and proofread their rules if they want even a chance at balance. Fire every single playtester who does the "UGH I CANT BELIEVE THEY WOULD PLAY IT THAT WAY IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT INTENDED TO PLAY LIKE THAT" excuse/eyeroll. The language either allows it or doesn't allow it. If it isn't clear then the instructions are bad. It's pretty hard to balance things if people are playing them differently depending on how you interpret vague language.

Savior protocols is probably one of the better examples for this:
Originally, the rules were vague enough that it was ANY attack and it would be translated into a single mortal wound. This is incredibly strong. Some people argued that attacks resulting in mortal wounds (typically psychic attacks) would treat each mortal wound as an individual attack so 3 MW=3 Drones. Still strong but not nearly as strong as turning smite into 1 MW on a drone. It was then clarified to be only ranged and melee attacks originating from a weapon. (No psychic attacks) Strong with a weakness and most people still assumed mortal wounds required an additional drone (snipers etc) It was then further clarified that additional MW do not require additional drones, but attacks that fail to wound while still causing mortal wounds means you cannot intercept the MW.

None of these clarifications required changing the actual Savior Protocols rules. How do you accurately cost drones if the original rules were vague enough to allow literally all of these interpretations? The first option is OP if drones cost anything less than 15ppm. The last option is strong, but arguably fair at 10ppm given how many things are unblockable by SP. Then, given that almost every Tau unit has access to SP, how do you accurately price their durability with the same vagueness?

Once everyone is playing the same game you can make a pass at balance. Anything before that can be completely destroyed by later clarifications that change the way rules are played without actually changing the text of the rules.

It's not that easy, especially not when people want to be misled. Who knows what efforts they have going on, we can agree that it's probably too little, but things slip. A few thousand people are better than any single technical writer/catbug could ever be and an FAQ document is pretty easy to make. For example, there is no such thing as a psychic attack which you seem to imply exists, that's something you made up or took over from a previous edition, that's just what GW has to deal with. Or a sniper hitting a drone, normally, it would do 1 wound with AP- and 1 mortal wound instead it just does 1 mortal wound to the Drones.

The effect GW wanted for Saviour Protocols is also super complex IMO and they have other bodyguard rules that are pretty simple and aura durability buffs that are simple, it's really just a question of putting a tool that's too difficult to learn to use in the hands of hairless monkies and using a natural language that was not engineered to avoid misunderstandings to convey that rule. Think about literal laws for the real world, how they get interpreted and wrung about for political gain, then multiply that by a thousand when Timmy shoots his snipers at a Suit and it only takes one mortal wound. It's not that the rule was badly written, it's that its effect should never have been in the game.

Assuming people want to be misled is kind of rude to assume about their character, but that really doesn't matter if the rules are concise and clear. If the rules are written in a way that is open to multiple interpretations then they are not clear rules full stop. How do you determine the base strength of a model? You look at the number in the S column. No matter how hard I want to be misled S4 is S4. Sure, nobody gets it right on the first time and some things slip up, but how does infinite exploding 6s pass all of the playtesters without a single person going "uhhh isn't this infinite?" How does the Tigershark AX-1 have a non-functional main gun on day 1? Did literally 0 playtesters try to block smite with SP? Not a single one went "Is smite an attack?" Their playtesters are assuming things and applying knowledge of what the intent is. That is a bad playtester for determining what something does and that's exactly why you need someone who follows the instructions without knowing what the goal is. Record the results and each revision should try to minimize deviation to an acceptable level.

 DominayTrix wrote:

Assuming people want to be misled is kind of rude to assume about their character, but that really doesn't matter if the rules are concise and clear. If the rules are written in a way that is open to multiple interpretations then they are not clear rules full stop. How do you determine the base strength of a model? You look at the number in the S column. No matter how hard I want to be misled S4 is S4. Sure, nobody gets it right on the first time and some things slip up, but how does infinite exploding 6s pass all of the playtesters without a single person going "uhhh isn't this infinite?" How does the Tigershark AX-1 have a non-functional main gun on day 1? Did literally 0 playtesters try to block smite with SP? Not a single one went "Is smite an attack?" Their playtesters are assuming things and applying knowledge of what the intent is. That is a bad playtester for determining what something does and that's exactly why you need someone who follows the instructions without knowing what the goal is. Record the results and each revision should try to minimize deviation to an acceptable level.

You can interpret even the clearest rules to mean something they don't. Like is a psychic power an attack? You can apparently take it doing damage to mean that it's an attack, even though it's not in the rules, because something that does damage is an attack according to your view of the English language and your values and beliefs (I'd agree if we weren't talking about terms of rules in a game). Knowing that a psychic power is never an attack is just something you know, so if you write attack you do not need to specify that psychic powers are excluded because they are not attacks. Otherwise, you would have to write "this unit has a 5+ invulnerable save against Shooting attacks, but not against Melee attacks, psychic powers or any other ability or rule that deals damage", instead of "this unit has a 5+ invulnerable save against Shooting attacks". Then if people misunderstand (knuckleheads that want to game the system or people that are legitimately confused like yourself) you make an FAQ and/or Errata. Take the following rule:

If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit with one or more wounds remaining (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to one of the targets with the largest number of lost wounds possible.

I tried to fix the wording of the wound rolls because of an exploit you can do with models that are not immediately removed from the table after reaching 0 wounds and someone asked me if he could put wounds on one model and then before that model is killed put a wound on a different model. I think it's extremely clear by "if a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to one of the targets with the largest number of lost wounds possible" that is not possible since the wounded model has lost more wounds than a model that is not wounded. Someone was confused and thought I had accidentally allowed people to juggle wounds, I now have a much greater degree of sympathy for GW. You also have to factor into the whole thing that English is not the first language of everyone that plays the game. That's why I said you can't put complicated rules in the game, because some people will not understand what you are trying to tell them unless you use simple language, even if the text is technically clear on how it works. So yes, we can all agree that it says 4 in the Strength characteristic of the unit, but when you try to juggle wounds before saves are made and ignoring any additional damage dealt by abilities, then it's just too complicated to implement and should've been scrapped in favour of a rule that either eats individual damage like Lychguard or just adds durability in the form of an improved Sv or T characteristic to all Infantry and Suit units within 3" of a Savour Protocols unit.

Vict you are being obtuse...Clear rules make sense. Through the fickleness of language you can get alternate interpretation, sure. That is why you play test and that is where you clarify using such precise language there is no possibility about how to interpret it.

It really is funny looking at a YMDC thread and average joe shmoo rolls in and just say...why didn't they just say it this way "example" and everyone can only respond with..."well because that would have made too much sense".

It is clear to anyone with a base level of average intelligence that these designers do not properly play test or even attempt to make balanced rules. It's not because it's hard. It is literally because they don't try or don't approach things correctly. Almost like this is the same company that had no idea people would attempt to DS their whole army with 7 tyrants and a few spores hiding in their deployment zone....they are so uninspired and out their element when it comes to rules design.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Vict you are being obtuse...Clear rules make sense. Through the fickleness of language you can get alternate interpretation, sure. That is why you play test and that is where you clarify using such precise language there is no possibility about how to interpret it.

Clear, concise technical wording that has no possibility of being misread? There are whole *professions* devoted to it (Law and Business Analysis). If those entire *professions* can't do it, what makes you think GW can?

It's not a trivial task.

It really is funny looking at a YMDC thread and average joe shmoo rolls in and just say...why didn't they just say it this way "example" and everyone can only respond with..."well because that would have made too much sense".

It's funny how everyone on Monday morning can lay out exactly what team X should have done to win. There's a term for that: Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

It is clear to anyone with a base level of average intelligence that these designers do not properly play test or even attempt to make balanced rules.

Demonstrably untrue. Several posters (not including myself) have that belief who've otherwise shown they posses "base level of average intelligence".

It's not because it's hard.

Lolwut? 100% testing nontrivial systems *is* hard. Possibly NP hard, depending on the system. Quite literally a "wicked problem", most of the time, too.

It is literally because they don't try or don't approach things correctly.

Only pedantically true based on particular meanings of "correctly". Not to the level you (or I) would want? Sure. But whos' to say the level we pick is "correct"?

Almost like this is the same company that had no idea people would attempt to DS their whole army with 7 tyrants and a few spores hiding in their deployment zone....they are so uninspired and out their element when it comes to rules design.

I think you don't understand large organizations.

I myself see nothing wrong in deep srtiking with full army. There is terminator wing as a concept at least. 7 tyrants seems like a strange thing. What would drive them to work like that together without troops, mist be really strange setup.

Those companies and everything makes their hardest to anyone not understand anything. Thats what they get their income on. People who tell you the world is a complex place are the most simple. It really is not. To make something complex is to purposedly make a pull on people. Then everybody must say that its complex and you just dont understand and thats how the "world is" even it isnt, its just people taking advantage of other people. Some people call it "babylon" and the gw marketing department is definetely part of it. This is the reason for all the hate i n wh players against the company that have provided them the greatest game ever.

I have never had any rules that could not be understood in fantasy battles and when i tried 40k it made sense and the rules could be given in few minutes.

Maybe its more like there are people who do not want to understand no matter what because they think there is some kind of gain for it.


Btw, in real time environment knowing "how to win" usually amounts to nothing even if it would be right. The best perform is usually to act on instinct alone.

Bharring wrote:
what makes you think GW can?

because other companies writing game rules can

and we are not talking about a fail-safe rulebook easy to understand for everyone, but about mistakes that someone who never played the game/edition before spots it the first time reading the rules.
which is something that could be easy avoided

 kodos wrote:

Bharring wrote:
what makes you think GW can?

because other companies writing game rules can

and we are not talking about a fail-safe rulebook easy to understand for everyone, but about mistakes that someone who never played the game/edition before spots it the first time reading the rules.
which is something that could be easy avoided

Other companies write better rules. Which is a standard we should hold them to. No other companies write perfect rules, or don't write some rules badly. It's silly to hold them to *that* standard.

I agree they fall short of an appropriate standard. I disagree on what the appropriate standard is.

never said anyone writes perfect rules

and of course different people have a different opinion on what a basic or good standard is

but it is just not true that is is impossible to avoid some simple mistakes by taking a little bit more care

we can discuss until eternity if "0-12, 12-24" or "0-12, >12-24" is easier to understand or will avoid discussions during gameplay
or if a unit should cost 210 points instead of 215

but this is not the point

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Vict you are being obtuse...Clear rules make sense. Through the fickleness of language you can get alternate interpretation, sure. That is why you play test and that is where you clarify using such precise language there is no possibility about how to interpret it.

Clear, concise technical wording that has no possibility of being misread? There are whole *professions* devoted to it (Law and Business Analysis). If those entire *professions* can't do it, what makes you think GW can?

It's not a trivial task.

It really is funny looking at a YMDC thread and average joe shmoo rolls in and just say...why didn't they just say it this way "example" and everyone can only respond with..."well because that would have made too much sense".

It's funny how everyone on Monday morning can lay out exactly what team X should have done to win. There's a term for that: Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

It is clear to anyone with a base level of average intelligence that these designers do not properly play test or even attempt to make balanced rules.

Demonstrably untrue. Several posters (not including myself) have that belief who've otherwise shown they posses "base level of average intelligence".

It's not because it's hard.

Lolwut? 100% testing nontrivial systems *is* hard. Possibly NP hard, depending on the system. Quite literally a "wicked problem", most of the time, too.

It is literally because they don't try or don't approach things correctly.

Only pedantically true based on particular meanings of "correctly". Not to the level you (or I) would want? Sure. But whos' to say the level we pick is "correct"?

Almost like this is the same company that had no idea people would attempt to DS their whole army with 7 tyrants and a few spores hiding in their deployment zone....they are so uninspired and out their element when it comes to rules design.

I think you don't understand large organizations.

Are you a GW shill? Seriously? Are you comparing law...which often involves 90 page contracts that no one reads to a board game with the most basic rules possible? Even if it actually were hard to write clear rules (its not) you could always give an example of how to play it if you were somehow incapable of putting it into words (laughable). Stop making excuses for GW. It's getting really old. If only we could unite. Then they'd be forced to listen.

Breakng the law breaking the law!

How can you, you, with the custom rule sheet. This is heresy.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Vict you are being obtuse...Clear rules make sense. Through the fickleness of language you can get alternate interpretation, sure. That is why you play test and that is where you clarify using such precise language there is no possibility about how to interpret it.

Clear, concise technical wording that has no possibility of being misread? There are whole *professions* devoted to it (Law and Business Analysis). If those entire *professions* can't do it, what makes you think GW can?

It's not a trivial task.

It really is funny looking at a YMDC thread and average joe shmoo rolls in and just say...why didn't they just say it this way "example" and everyone can only respond with..."well because that would have made too much sense".

It's funny how everyone on Monday morning can lay out exactly what team X should have done to win. There's a term for that: Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

It is clear to anyone with a base level of average intelligence that these designers do not properly play test or even attempt to make balanced rules.

Demonstrably untrue. Several posters (not including myself) have that belief who've otherwise shown they posses "base level of average intelligence".

It's not because it's hard.

Lolwut? 100% testing nontrivial systems *is* hard. Possibly NP hard, depending on the system. Quite literally a "wicked problem", most of the time, too.

It is literally because they don't try or don't approach things correctly.

Only pedantically true based on particular meanings of "correctly". Not to the level you (or I) would want? Sure. But whos' to say the level we pick is "correct"?

Almost like this is the same company that had no idea people would attempt to DS their whole army with 7 tyrants and a few spores hiding in their deployment zone....they are so uninspired and out their element when it comes to rules design.

I think you don't understand large organizations.

Are you a GW shill? Seriously? Are you comparing law...which often involves 90 page contracts that no one reads to a board game with the most basic rules possible? Even if it actually were hard to write clear rules (its not) you could always give an example of how to play it if you were somehow incapable of putting it into words (laughable). Stop making excuses for GW. It's getting really old. If only we could unite. Then they'd be forced to listen.

You can unite. You can choose not to purchase there products or involve yourself in the hobby until they make the changes you demand they make. Let me know how it goes for you

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Vict you are being obtuse...Clear rules make sense. Through the fickleness of language you can get alternate interpretation, sure. That is why you play test and that is where you clarify using such precise language there is no possibility about how to interpret it.

Clear, concise technical wording that has no possibility of being misread? There are whole *professions* devoted to it (Law and Business Analysis). If those entire *professions* can't do it, what makes you think GW can?

It's not a trivial task.

It really is funny looking at a YMDC thread and average joe shmoo rolls in and just say...why didn't they just say it this way "example" and everyone can only respond with..."well because that would have made too much sense".

It's funny how everyone on Monday morning can lay out exactly what team X should have done to win. There's a term for that: Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

It is clear to anyone with a base level of average intelligence that these designers do not properly play test or even attempt to make balanced rules.

Demonstrably untrue. Several posters (not including myself) have that belief who've otherwise shown they posses "base level of average intelligence".

It's not because it's hard.

Lolwut? 100% testing nontrivial systems *is* hard. Possibly NP hard, depending on the system. Quite literally a "wicked problem", most of the time, too.

It is literally because they don't try or don't approach things correctly.

Only pedantically true based on particular meanings of "correctly". Not to the level you (or I) would want? Sure. But whos' to say the level we pick is "correct"?

Almost like this is the same company that had no idea people would attempt to DS their whole army with 7 tyrants and a few spores hiding in their deployment zone....they are so uninspired and out their element when it comes to rules design.

I think you don't understand large organizations.

Are you a GW shill? Seriously?

Only on DakkaDakka are posters that say things like "I agree they fall short of an appropriate standard" clearly a shill.

Are you comparing law...which often involves 90 page contracts that no one reads to a board game with the most basic rules possible?

It's 90 pages because even simple things get very complicated when you try to be exactly technically correct. Law was one of the examples I gave, not the only. But it's a good example of how anything simple becomes really, really complex to get exactly right. Take the rules for driving; they're fairly simple, and almost every American can execute them properly. But I don't even want to know how many pages and pages of laws it took to codify them.

Even if it actually were hard to write clear rules (its not) you could always give an example of how to play it if you were somehow incapable of putting it into words (laughable).

And that example would cover several scenarios. But not all scenarios. So again, you're looking at an imperfect solution to a complicated problem.

Stop making excuses for GW. It's getting really old.

You could prevent such "excuses" by ceasing to make the same silly claims. It would get old if it weren't so counterproductive.

If only we could unite. Then they'd be forced to listen.

You can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_corporate_law

I'm not sure I'd side with you over GW, though.

Dont be stupid, who makes better and cooler miniatyres than citadel was it ?

You are just that kind of people who is building their own 3d models.


I see in the far future, people will print their stuff and you will get to understand how nice it was when someone did the rules for you.

Bharring wrote:
Law was one of the examples I gave, not the only. But it's a good example of how anything simple becomes really, really complex to get exactly right. Take the rules for driving; they're fairly simple, and almost every American can execute them properly. But I don't even want to know how many pages and pages of laws it took to codify them.

and than there are laws that are just a single sentence and clear to everyone (murder in Austrian law is a single sentence with 20 words and there was never a problem with it or something not clear, you mea need 1 more sentences from the beginning of the law book that explains the basics but nothing more)

so it is a good example that if you want to keep things simple, you can do it

Whats the sentence ?

You get reduction if its first time ? If you were drunk ? If you confess ? If you are nice in prison ?


In our country the law starts with sentences that announce that the judges of our countey judge first behalf god and after that, sweden.

Amai wrote:
Whats the sentence ?

(with google translator)

Anyone who kills another person is punished with imprisonment of ten to twenty years or life imprisonment.

§5 (optional): Intentionally acts, who wants to realize a fact, which corresponds to a legal Tatbild (an action under punishment in the law); For this it suffices that the perpetrator seriously considers this realization possible and agrees with it.

so as simple as that, everyone who kills someone (intentionally) is a murderer

PS:
the very first sentence in the law book is:
A punishment or preventive measure may only be imposed for an act that is subject to an legal punishment and has already been punishable at the time of its commission.

So all kind of custom stuff is acceptable if its not stated in the book correctly ?

Iv heard america is the wonderlnd in that.

 kodos wrote:

Amai wrote:
Whats the sentence ?

(with google translator)

Anyone who kills another person is punished with imprisonment of ten to twenty years or life imprisonment.

§5 (optional): Intentionally acts, who wants to realize a fact, which corresponds to a legal Tatbild; For this it suffices that the perpetrator seriously considers this realization possible and agrees with it.

the very first sentence in the law book is:
A punishment or preventive measure may only be imposed for an act that is subject to an legal punishment and has already been punishable at the time of its commission.

Killing:
-In the Trolly Experiemnt:
--If the operator picked the track with one guy, did he kill the one guy?
--If the operator didn't do anything, did he kill five guys?
-Does euthinasia count?
--What about publishing technical details about it?
--What about hosting technical details someone else posted?
--What about linking to them?
--Emailing them to someone who used them?
-If Alice stabbed Carla, and Bob shot Carla, who killed Carla?
-If Alice sold Carla a house with a carcinegin, and Carla died of cancer, did Alice kill Carla?
-If Alice pushes Carla in front of Bob, who runs her over, did Alice or Bob kill Carla?

Person:
-Do the braindead count?
-Does one become a person at conception, birth, or some other point? (Don't debate this one, just recognize the discrepency)

Imprisonment:
-Can you be House Arrested?
-Can you be "imprisoned" in an elaborate estate with all your needs attended to?
-Can you be imprisoned in a 5x3x3 closet and not let out at all for 10-20 years (or life)?

This works because those concepts are identified elsewhere. And because some concepts we accept a "generally understood" concept over a technical definition.

I have these kind of items to come.
-Warhammer: Game of Thrones
-Warhammer: One Piece
-Warhammer: Belgariad
-Warhammer: Old Hammer
-Warhammer 40k: Starcraft

Later if i manage:
-Warmaster
-Mordheim

Amai wrote:
In finland you would get slapped in the face for speaking such nonsense.

You might say that, but even the wikipedia article summarizing Finish law on murder alone (only one type of killling) is much longer than my post:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(Finnish_law)

The thing is, in here the court do not give sentences based on law -> Each judge can do what ever they want nobody is restricting them in any way. Same applies to everything else. So it does not matter at the slightest what the law book says, the judges know whats right and give sentences based on that. There are some small prints in the law books called "pre cases" and those are the one you can think of a guideline not the law text. (How actual judges have acted on court)

You can plead on higher courts but they are basically the same people who decided the first one.

They use common logic and its more important than the law and it is a good thing -> Try anything bs in the court and the judge wont take it.

Drop the incredibly off topic stuff now. Thank you

I think most of the issues with savior protocols occur because people think they "know" the rules - but actually they don't, they just remember something close to them and rule of thumb it. So yes, there are no psychic attacks - you do not "resolve attacks" in the psychic sequence, you resolve the psychic power. Whereas you do resolve "attacks" in the shooting and fighting phases.

But thats based on having the rulebook in front of me. If you had asked me at the weekend I'd probably said "yeah, smite's basically d3 mortal wounds on the nearest target, why shouldn't it be an attack?"

I can also see why this might give rise to a RAW and RAI debate - because why shouldn't the various psychic powers which amount to "roll some dice, the target takes mortal wounds" be treated as "attacks"? The book doesn't ever explicitly say "these are not attacks" - probably because, with the exception of things like savior protocols, it doesn't come up and so doesn't matter.

Moving back on topic though - not really sure this matters for balance - beyond a marginal maybe they should be worth a little more or less points if they have this ability.

I mean shield drones are an interesting one for balance, because really their value is determined by the value of other units. Want to try and kill my 3 riptides surrounded by 40~ drones? Good luck. But if this is "overpowered" (and I don't know if it, versus just being quite good and borderline obnoxious to fight) - is the issue the drones or the tides? Which should be nerfed?

How can i change the topic name. I want to change tjis as general smacktalk thread and stop that balance discussion. Im not contributing to it more until i get the codexes wjich may be never so it is finished for now and go back to fantasy projects. I will later post the starcraft mod for 40kmin appropriate thread.

I want people to tell how things are ran n their country i at least am ashamed of my own. People are not respected here.

I guess this can be left hanhing though amd let it work its magic if any, this does not need me i open a different thread for nation smacktalk thread.

Political and Religious confessions not allowed it seems so that makes it then.

I will just say that if you ever visit Finland, stay away from anything that seem evil, the evil side is very strong in this country and they are not restricted by law (the most light criminal punishment system in the whole world i suppose) and if someone is unemployed it is a bad sign even the person would be nice -> Almost always related to some criminal activities.

Otherwise very beautiful country and especially the lakes and lots of people who are shy and locked up spiritually but will open up when drunk. In big cities its quite safe as there are that much people but the mid size sities could be really bad, especially the areas with cheap apartments and in some cases, centrums. The most beautiful city is Helsinki, which has astounding buildings and when you walk from the train station to any direction it will be less crowded and real beautiful -> Lets say walk from Mannerheimintie to the direction of sea and go to St Michels Church (or what was it) -> Real beautiful.

If you want nice lakes, go in middle Finland, there is lots of it. But stay away from junkies / criminals, they are out of control and their movement is not restricted in any way as i heard that in some countries they are locked up in certain areas called "Ghettos" but in here you could meet "ghetto people" from basicly all around the country expect the Swedish areas (who are often rich and feel good about their life) and some remote places where there are almost no humans at all.

The Law system is completely and beyond stupid. Would need A LOT of rebalancing to be anywhere fair to lawful citizens. It makes you think your goverment do not appreciate people at all and accepts evil.

Finnishi men are also basically controlled by women and are basically shy and pathetic -> So if you have good self esteem finnish women are easy pick. Just talk about anything and they start to want you. They are really beautiful too, but michevious and basically all of them are liars.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Are you a GW shill? Seriously? Are you comparing law...which often involves 90 page contracts that no one reads to a board game with the most basic rules possible? Even if it actually were hard to write clear rules (its not) you could always give an example of how to play it if you were somehow incapable of putting it into words (laughable). Stop making excuses for GW. It's getting really old. If only we could unite. Then they'd be forced to listen.

Would you read it if the 40k rulebook was 90 pages? I know a lot of people didn't read the 7th ed rulebook, they just played games with 6th edition rules until someone who had read 7th edition corrected them on something and then that became incorperated into their ruleset amalgam. Being able to tell people to read the rules real quick when they ask to be taught is super helpful, I can get a cup of tea, watch a cat video, whip up a couple of 500 pt army lists and they'll have read the core rules. Being both impeccably precise without being long-winded is hard, all things considered I'd rather have the shorter rules and then have more FAQ and maybe make a roll off once in a while than a long rulebook. They nibbed the infinite hits thing in the butt after only a couple of days, how long did the 1+ FNP Captain last in 7th? Talking about being a shill, I don't know I'm the one that hasn't supported any of GW's rules for 8th edition because I don't think the standard at which they write rules is high enough, can you say the same? I was just about to order a couple of FW models before the SM codex and supplements came out, now I cancelled that for the immediate future, I think that's more important than saying online that writing clear and concise rules is harder than just so.

 vict0988 wrote:

Would you read it if the 40k rulebook was 90 pages? I know a lot of people didn't read the 7th ed rulebook, they just played games with 6th edition rules until someone who had read 7th edition corrected them on something and then that became incorperated into their ruleset amalgam

this is a real problem and not something that is new but was there from the beginning and the same people who did not read the rules are most of the time, also those who would argue that reducing the rules will remove tactical depth as only a huge amount of rules will grant that

and 8th is not better than 7th regarding rules, it is just different.
Most core rules were every only important at the beginning of an edition without Codex books adding their own rules replacing the part of the core
at the end of an edition most of the core was ignored in one way or the other

my problem with 40k is, that changes in the basic rules never really affect the faction rules of the different armies. and this is causing the whole balance problem
this is also a reason why changing to a different dice won't do anything as GW will keep the faction rules and even with a D20, most models will hit on 3+ or 4+ until a everyone has a new Codex

so a start would be to stick with a core rule concept and adjust the faction rules to match them, instead of keeping the faction rules and changing the core to balance them
(which is the main reason why people get the impression that it is an impossible task, as if you do it that way it really is impossible)

we once took the rules of 7th and wrote a "clean" version of the rules, removing leftovers, somed up special rules etc and had less than 40 pages that covered everything that was in the game at that point.

Amai, close the bottle and take a breather. That description of Finland is so off the mark it's straight up funny

Thread has taken a very strange tangent at this point.....

This thread has become my favorite thread of all time. I, don't know what to say other then this, I never could have expected how it would end up. This is a unique feeling for me. Very interesting.

PS I'm off to Finland for a visit.

Amai wrote:
How can i change the topic name. I want to change tjis as general smacktalk thread.

We do not want or allow threads like this.

Seems the original topic has been... abandoned.

If you wish to just post about random things then I suggest a personal blog or website would be more appropriate.