Well I took quick check on army list forum. Found quickly 4 lists that would get illegalized by this bogus rumour by 3 cap and couple more due to imperium keyword change.
tneva82 wrote: You think GW hates money and wants less? They have been REMOVING restrictions rather than adding more for years. This would kill entire factions out of game effectively thus crippling their sales. Not something GW is likely to do.
You make the wrong conclusions
killing of factions out tournament meta is the way to make money
let everyone buy 200 yellow Horros, than change something so everyone is going to buy pink Horrors
after everyone has invested into 100 Conscript, change it and let everyone get Baneblades instead
So yes GW wants more money, and with the new advertising "we learn from mistakes" the can change what is effective every quarter and people are jumping on it.
What would be the outcome of every single unit is 0-3, and soup limitations for matched play?
An increase in sales as everyone would need units have not bought before as they were not needed (so people with Tzaangor heavy armies need to buy in Thousand Sons now)
It is the change that makes GW money and not the "less restriction" because as soon as everyone has his "soup" he is not going to buy more. So replacing soup with single faction and later bringing back a different kind of soup, and going back to limitations again etc.
Fafnir wrote: Pure admech relies on Dragoons for space control. With a cap of three units, their defense is adversely effected in larger games. Dunecrawlers also operate like Squadrons but take up individual slots. Moreover, since Admech options are limited to three good units (Kastelans, Dragoons, Dunecrawlers), their pitiful unit selection gets even worse once you cap out.
Even using just those units and a cap on 3 of each unit, I get over 3500pts for just those models - no Troops, no HQs, nothing. AdMech are fine with that limit.
They have other glaring issues, but the 3-unit cap doesn’t affect them.
You'll rarely want more than 6 Kastellans in your army. More than one unit of that is not only a massive point sink that can be indefinitely tied up be even a single guardsman, but Binhinaric Overdrive can only be used on one unit at a time, meaning any other units are a waste of time. Kastelans are a huge point sink.
Multiple units of Dragoons are necessary to fortify your lines in order to block off deepstrike routes, intercept assaults, and tie up enemies. Outside of goondozer builds which are offensive in nature, this is best done with many small units of Dragoons, not maxed out ones. 6 separate units of Dragoons to insulate your guns is far more preferable to two units of 3 or one unit of 6. This is where they start to get hit.
With Cawl, one 6-man Kastelan force, 3 Dunecrawlers, and 3 one-man units of Dragoons, you cap out at 1531. Without more Dragoon units, an army like this has pitiful defense, and can easily be locked down in a single turn.
I think people are mixing “units” with “models” when referring to “vehicles” etc. A unit of Dragoons is the same as a unit of Vanguard Veterans – in the fact that 1 Vanguard Vet unit is 5-10 models. A unit of Dragoons is 1-6 models.
This would mean, that the cap on Dragoons would be 3 units of 6, not 3 units of 1.
It -might- be applied differently on units that split up into individual units after deployment, but, units that stay as a whole wouldn’t be capped… Otherwise every basic unit in the game would be illegal, due to it having more than 3 models in a single unit…
tneva82 wrote: You think GW hates money and wants less? They have been REMOVING restrictions rather than adding more for years. This would kill entire factions out of game effectively thus crippling their sales. Not something GW is likely to do.
You make the wrong conclusions
killing of factions out tournament meta is the way to make money
let everyone buy 200 yellow Horros, than change something so everyone is going to buy pink Horrors
after everyone has invested into 100 Conscript, change it and let everyone get Baneblades instead
Here's the issue with that; only a very minor amount of their playerbase chase the meta like that. And it's very hard to have sympathy for people who power game THAT hard. They're fully aware at this point that GW will nerf unit spam so they only have themselves to blame.
Of course, but this group is also the one that bring in the money
the causal gamer at home who don't care about those meta shifts is not affected by any change and just buy what he likes
there are people who still play with their 3rd Edi Space Wolves against 3rd Edi Orks, have fun and just buy new releases from time to time.
While those people are important as they keep the local scene alive, they don't bring in much money.
the competitive players are those who buy 10 Rhinos for a Formation and 3 Wraithknights 3 months later.
And judging by the change GW made, they are now aware of this group as their income source
(same like those 1-5% who heavy invest in f2p/p2w online games are the main source for profit and not the 95% that keep the game alive)
kodos wrote: Of course, but this group is also the one that bring in the money
the causal gamer at home who don't care about those meta shifts is not affected by any change and just buy what he likes
there are people who still play with their 3rd Edi Space Wolves against 3rd Edi Orks, have fun and just buy new releases from time to time.
While those people are important as they keep the local scene alive, they don't bring in much money.
the competitive players are those who buy 10 Rhinos for a Formation and 3 Wraithknights 3 months later.
And judging by the change GW made, they are now aware of this group as their income source
(same like those 1-5% who heavy invest in f2p/p2w online games are the main source for profit and not the 95% that keep the game alive)
I think you are grossly underestimating the income from what you call casual gamers (those that dont play at big tournaments). Who do you think buys all those models that are not OP?
Besides, a large portion of all models sold will never see either paint nor tabletops.
tneva82 wrote: Well I took quick check on army list forum. Found quickly 4 lists that would get illegalized by this bogus rumour by 3 cap and couple more due to imperium keyword change.
Your point is? I mean of course some lists are going to be invalidated by any changes in the FAQ. That is how it works. I'm sure when points changes from chapter approved hit there were a ton of lists that were no longer valid (over/under on points), codex Tau with the commander restriction invalidated a ton of lists. Any restriction or change they put in play is going to invalidate someones list. The question is does it improve the game overall of the majority of players. Now you can say "well they should get the points perfect and that way these bad lists won't exist." That is extraordinarily difficult, you can also say "Just restrict the broken stuff" The issue with that is the frequency with which they are making these changes going forward, if they only say limit Flyrants to 0-3 but not anything else, then the next broken thing rises to the top of spam, but then they won't fix it for 6 months. Further, as a customer if they are going to restrict any unit that becomes problematic I'd rather have it all done up front, that way I don't buy things I cannot use later on. IT sucks short term for those who already bought that stuff, but I'd rather get it all out of the way rather than buy a bunch of a particular unit.
Beyond that a though I had is if they do this it actually makes the Combat Squad rule somewhat useful. You were going to take 6 x 5 sternguard, well now you take 3x10 and then break them up.
tneva82 wrote: Well I took quick check on army list forum. Found quickly 4 lists that would get illegalized by this bogus rumour by 3 cap and couple more due to imperium keyword change.
Your point is? I mean of course some lists are going to be invalidated by any changes in the FAQ. That is how it works. I'm sure when points changes from chapter approved hit there were a ton of lists that were no longer valid (over/under on points), codex Tau with the commander restriction invalidated a ton of lists. Any restriction or change they put in play is going to invalidate someones list. The question is does it improve the game overall of the majority of players. Now you can say "well they should get the points perfect and that way these bad lists won't exist." That is extraordinarily difficult, you can also say "Just restrict the broken stuff" The issue with that is the frequency with which they are making these changes going forward, if they only say limit Flyrants to 0-3 but not anything else, then the next broken thing rises to the top of spam, but then they won't fix it for 6 months. Further, as a customer if they are going to restrict any unit that becomes problematic I'd rather have it all done up front, that way I don't buy things I cannot use later on. IT sucks short term for those who already bought that stuff, but I'd rather get it all out of the way rather than buy a bunch of a particular unit.
Beyond that a though I had is if they do this it actually makes the Combat Squad rule somewhat useful. You were going to take 6 x 5 sternguard, well now you take 3x10 and then break them up.
I agree with what you’re saying, especially from a customer point of view. If I know that going forward, there is going to be a restriction on how many units of each data slate I can take, I’d be more confident in each of my purchases.
I also agree that it makes combat squads mean something/have a place going forward.
It does, and will suck for people who have brought multiples of each unit beyond the limit (I’m guessing this will scale up with every 1000 points somehow), but, if you’re also playing casually you can always drop the limit but still follow the main “Matched Play” ruleset.
kodos wrote: Of course, but this group is also the one that bring in the money
the causal gamer at home who don't care about those meta shifts is not affected by any change and just buy what he likes
there are people who still play with their 3rd Edi Space Wolves against 3rd Edi Orks, have fun and just buy new releases from time to time.
While those people are important as they keep the local scene alive, they don't bring in much money.
the competitive players are those who buy 10 Rhinos for a Formation and 3 Wraithknights 3 months later.
And judging by the change GW made, they are now aware of this group as their income source
(same like those 1-5% who heavy invest in f2p/p2w online games are the main source for profit and not the 95% that keep the game alive)
Their HALF YEAR revenue was £108.9m. Not all of that will be kits, but easily 70%. If the average kit price is £50 (that's $70) then they sold 2.2 MILLION kits in SIX months. Even if that's an order of magnitude off it's still more kits than ALL of the models at LVO and Adepticon COMBINED - ten times over.
Kdash wrote: I think people are mixing “units” with “models” when referring to “vehicles” etc. A unit of Dragoons is the same as a unit of Vanguard Veterans – in the fact that 1 Vanguard Vet unit is 5-10 models. A unit of Dragoons is 1-6 models.
This would mean, that the cap on Dragoons would be 3 units of 6, not 3 units of 1.
It -might- be applied differently on units that split up into individual units after deployment, but, units that stay as a whole wouldn’t be capped… Otherwise every basic unit in the game would be illegal, due to it having more than 3 models in a single unit…
Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know exact wording of this supposed limit assuming the unlikely scenario it would be true. In tournaments where similar limit has been used wording has been unit of 3 vehicles is 3 for limitation...
kodos wrote: Of course, but this group is also the one that bring in the money
the causal gamer at home who don't care about those meta shifts is not affected by any change and just buy what he likes
there are people who still play with their 3rd Edi Space Wolves against 3rd Edi Orks, have fun and just buy new releases from time to time.
While those people are important as they keep the local scene alive, they don't bring in much money.
the competitive players are those who buy 10 Rhinos for a Formation and 3 Wraithknights 3 months later.
And judging by the change GW made, they are now aware of this group as their income source
(same like those 1-5% who heavy invest in f2p/p2w online games are the main source for profit and not the 95% that keep the game alive)
Their HALF YEAR revenue was £108.9m. Not all of that will be kits, but easily 70%. If the average kit price is £50 then they sold 2.2 MILLION kits in SIX months. Even if that's an order of magnitude off it's still more kits than ALL of the models at LVO and Adepticon COMBINED - ten times over.
And meta chasing obviously happens only at adepticon....riiiight. Nevermind all the lists planned for leagues and FLG games etc that are similar to what you see in tournaments.
kodos wrote: Of course, but this group is also the one that bring in the money
the causal gamer at home who don't care about those meta shifts is not affected by any change and just buy what he likes
there are people who still play with their 3rd Edi Space Wolves against 3rd Edi Orks, have fun and just buy new releases from time to time.
While those people are important as they keep the local scene alive, they don't bring in much money.
the competitive players are those who buy 10 Rhinos for a Formation and 3 Wraithknights 3 months later.
And judging by the change GW made, they are now aware of this group as their income source
(same like those 1-5% who heavy invest in f2p/p2w online games are the main source for profit and not the 95% that keep the game alive)
There are 2 categories of "Big spenders".
The guys who travel to tournaments all around the world, chasing the latest cheese. This kind of players is impacted by the constant changes, but hardly represent even 1% of GW income.
The competitive guys at the stores which follow the cheese with a bit of delay and if it isn't too hard to do that (I.E. will get a cent star, but will not assemble 200 conscripts. Will take some stormraven, but hardly any fire raptors). These kind of players probably rapresent 25-30% of GW sales (mostly resellers though) but are impacted by the changes only if those changes hit the reasonable lists, and even then it's usually a minor impact.
I really hope they switch up how cover works to be honest. Like why would my infantry in a forest get the benfit of a cover save but if they're being shot at from the completely other side of the forest they do not, even though they now have 100% of the forest in between them instead of 50%?
And meta chasing obviously happens only at adepticon....riiiight. Nevermind all the lists planned for leagues and FLG games etc that are similar to what you see in tournaments.
You literally have no concept of the scale.
The top end is likely something like 30 kits for an army ($2,100), but let's make that an average. They sold enough kits for 73,000 armies. Adepticon and LVO are 1% of that.
tneva82 wrote: Well I took quick check on army list forum. Found quickly 4 lists that would get illegalized by this bogus rumour by 3 cap and couple more due to imperium keyword change.
Your point is? I mean of course some lists are going to be invalidated by any changes in the FAQ. That is how it works. I'm sure when points changes from chapter approved hit there were a ton of lists that were no longer valid (over/under on points), codex Tau with the commander restriction invalidated a ton of lists. Any restriction or change they put in play is going to invalidate someones list. The question is does it improve the game overall of the majority of players. Now you can say "well they should get the points perfect and that way these bad lists won't exist." That is extraordinarily difficult, you can also say "Just restrict the broken stuff" The issue with that is the frequency with which they are making these changes going forward, if they only say limit Flyrants to 0-3 but not anything else, then the next broken thing rises to the top of spam, but then they won't fix it for 6 months. Further, as a customer if they are going to restrict any unit that becomes problematic I'd rather have it all done up front, that way I don't buy things I cannot use later on. IT sucks short term for those who already bought that stuff, but I'd rather get it all out of the way rather than buy a bunch of a particular unit.
Beyond that a though I had is if they do this it actually makes the Combat Squad rule somewhat useful. You were going to take 6 x 5 sternguard, well now you take 3x10 and then break them up.
I agree with what you’re saying, especially from a customer point of view. If I know that going forward, there is going to be a restriction on how many units of each data slate I can take, I’d be more confident in each of my purchases.
I also agree that it makes combat squads mean something/have a place going forward.
It does, and will suck for people who have brought multiples of each unit beyond the limit (I’m guessing this will scale up with every 1000 points somehow), but, if you’re also playing casually you can always drop the limit but still follow the main “Matched Play” ruleset.
I'd like to see it like the detachment limit, where it is something basically everyone uses, but is a suggestion for balance, rather than a hard fast rule, that way if someone wants to leave it out, or discuss leaving it out they can.
tneva82 wrote: You think GW hates money and wants less? They have been REMOVING restrictions rather than adding more for years. This would kill entire factions out of game effectively thus crippling their sales. Not something GW is likely to do.
You make the wrong conclusions
killing of factions out tournament meta is the way to make money
let everyone buy 200 yellow Horros, than change something so everyone is going to buy pink Horrors
after everyone has invested into 100 Conscript, change it and let everyone get Baneblades instead
So yes GW wants more money, and with the new advertising "we learn from mistakes" the can change what is effective every quarter and people are jumping on it.
What would be the outcome of every single unit is 0-3, and soup limitations for matched play?
An increase in sales as everyone would need units have not bought before as they were not needed (so people with Tzaangor heavy armies need to buy in Thousand Sons now)
It is the change that makes GW money and not the "less restriction" because as soon as everyone has his "soup" he is not going to buy more. So replacing soup with single faction and later bringing back a different kind of soup, and going back to limitations again etc.
The tournament scene is nowhere near that important to GWs bottomline. My FLGS supports about three times the casual players that played in the Adepticon tournament. Anecdotal, sure, but that's just one store.
And meta chasing obviously happens only at adepticon....riiiight. Nevermind all the lists planned for leagues and FLG games etc that are similar to what you see in tournaments.
You literally have no concept of the scale.
The top end is likely something like 30 kits for an army ($2,100), but let's make that an average. They sold enough kits for 73,000 armies. Adepticon and LVO are 1% of that.
And we haven't even talked about second hand.
TL;DR You're blinded by your fevered quest.
Lol. You in your blindness forget that NOT ONLY TOURNAMENT PLAYERS BUY OPTIMIZED UNITS!
Broken units are easy to spot. People like to win. People spam broken stuff outside tournaments.
But yeah keep on living in dream world where GW puts balance over profit. That is road to dissapointment but hey your loss.
Lol. You in your blindness forget that NOT ONLY TOURNAMENT PLAYERS BUY OPTIMIZED UNITS!
Broken units are easy to spot. People like to win. People spam broken stuff outside tournaments.
But yeah keep on living in dream world where GW puts balance over profit. That is road to dissapointment but hey your loss.
Most people don't chase the meta. They mighthear an army is OP buy and build that and play it. Over a several month period. You need more time and money to build and paint an army than most people have. Whilst impulse buyers are probably a big factor in Gw's sales genuine flavour of the month in meta is a very small minority. And while I only have anecdotal evidence for this IMHO meta-chasers buy secondhand because they don't have the time.
Daedalus81 wrote: What if it's 3 max per detachment? Does that help enough without killing too much?
It makes Daemon detachments incredibly annoying. Each god only receives buffs if the detachment is mono-god, and they all only have 3 of each unit type.
You'll only ever be allowed to take min-squads of anything.
Daedalus81 wrote: What if it's 3 max per detachment? Does that help enough without killing too much?
It makes Daemon detachments incredibly annoying. Each god only receives buffs if the detachment is mono-god, and they all only have 3 of each unit type.
You'll only ever be allowed to take min-squads of anything.
Eeeeech, daemon lists are already a pain the hole to write. It wouldn't make much difference.
Daedalus81 wrote: What if it's 3 max per detachment? Does that help enough without killing too much?
What, if like Detachment limits and table size, it's just a recommendation for events, not a full-fledged matched play rule?
Well, I think you're still left with a few armies hanging out in the breeze if they want to go to a tourney, which isn't ideal.
yeah, but the whole point of restricting and simplifying things a bit more vigorously for the sake of "balance" is the very point and raison d'etre of matched play (and/or matched play+ tourney/event "recommendations"). If you're not willing to cut stuff, just go open play all the time.
Daedalus81 wrote: What if it's 3 max per detachment? Does that help enough without killing too much?
It makes Daemon detachments incredibly annoying. Each god only receives buffs if the detachment is mono-god, and they all only have 3 of each unit type.
You'll only ever be allowed to take min-squads of anything.
Eeeeech, daemon lists are already a pain the hole to write. It wouldn't make much difference.
My Codex is already an abomination of bad rules, please don't make it worse with limitations. :/
Kdash wrote: I think people are mixing “units” with “models” when referring to “vehicles” etc. A unit of Dragoons is the same as a unit of Vanguard Veterans – in the fact that 1 Vanguard Vet unit is 5-10 models. A unit of Dragoons is 1-6 models.
This would mean, that the cap on Dragoons would be 3 units of 6, not 3 units of 1.
It -might- be applied differently on units that split up into individual units after deployment, but, units that stay as a whole wouldn’t be capped… Otherwise every basic unit in the game would be illegal, due to it having more than 3 models in a single unit…
Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know exact wording of this supposed limit assuming the unlikely scenario it would be true. In tournaments where similar limit has been used wording has been unit of 3 vehicles is 3 for limitation...
[
Which would mean that any unit of more than 3 Kastallan Robots would be illegal as well, due to them being Vehicles - which then naturally on admech. Because of that, i doubt it would be limited like that, as you'd never be able to have more than 1 unit of Robots total.
Daedalus81 wrote: What if it's 3 max per detachment? Does that help enough without killing too much?
What, if like Detachment limits and table size, it's just a recommendation for events, not a full-fledged matched play rule?
Well, I think you're still left with a few armies hanging out in the breeze if they want to go to a tourney, which isn't ideal.
There already are a few armies hanging in the breeze if you want to go to a tournament and win. A 0-3 per army restriction (beyond maybe like mono-inquisition) does not make it impossible for any particular army to field a 2k force, it just might make a few worse. But some already suck so that isn't an issue IMO. As for 3 per deatchment, honestly that makes it a non- factor at reducing spam. If I was bringing 9 PBC or 7 Hive Tyrants I still can, I just need 3 detachments to do it. But that just puts an HQ tax on some spam. That only really curtails spam in a brigade.
gendoikari87 wrote: Limits on units are a stopgap. Just price then correctly the first time and you have no issues
Sometimes the "stopgap" is the better solution. Pricing "correctly" is never going to happen. People will always disagree and there will still ALWAYS be a "best choice" that people will spam. PERIOD.
Limiting datasheets to 0-3 per ARMY removes the option to spam AT ALL. At that point, appropriate price becomes more apparent as you have to make harder decisions.
I'm not sure if this 0-3 datasheets rumour will happen, but I certainly hope it does. Looking back at my last 10 years of list building, I can honestly say about 90% of my lists adhered to this standard. It makes for more varied lists.
gendoikari87 wrote: Limits on units are a stopgap. Just price then correctly the first time and you have no issues
Sometimes the "stopgap" is the better solution. Pricing "correctly" is never going to happen. People will always disagree and there will still ALWAYS be a "best choice" that people will spam. PERIOD.
Limiting datasheets to 0-3 per ARMY removes the option to spam AT ALL. At that point, appropriate price becomes more apparent as you have to make harder decisions.
I'm not sure if this 0-3 datasheets rumour will happen, but I certainly hope it does. Looking back at my last 10 years of list building, I can honestly say about 90% of my lists adhered to this standard. It makes for more varied lists.
-
I 100% disagree, but sure. It's their game. I've always got Starcraft Halve the damage on reapers, jack up flyrant wings 50 pts, make guardsmen 6 ppm, and then see what we've got.
Game issue solutions: Stuff like scaling weapons to more shots when the target is more than 10 models. (rein in Hordes) Detachment clarifications (Supreme Detachment change maybe?) Tournament Documentation. Soup. Stratagem repointing. Hand to Hand clarifications.
Individual model issues: Generally repointing to reflect the true value specific models bring (or don't bring) to the game.
gendoikari87 wrote: Limits on units are a stopgap. Just price then correctly the first time and you have no issues
Sometimes the "stopgap" is the better solution. Pricing "correctly" is never going to happen. People will always disagree and there will still ALWAYS be a "best choice" that people will spam. PERIOD.
Limiting datasheets to 0-3 per ARMY removes the option to spam AT ALL. At that point, appropriate price becomes more apparent as you have to make harder decisions.
I'm not sure if this 0-3 datasheets rumour will happen, but I certainly hope it does. Looking back at my last 10 years of list building, I can honestly say about 90% of my lists adhered to this standard. It makes for more varied lists.
-
I 100% disagree, but sure. It's their game. I've always got Starcraft Halve the damage on reapers, jack up flyrant wings 50 pts, make guardsmen 6 ppm, and then see what we've got.
PBCs still undercosted, as are cultists, pox walkers, shining spears....the list goes on, fix those something else will be. IT is really difficult to get an exact balance between all things and still have them be unique and interesting, especially with no limits on how many you can take.
gendoikari87 wrote: Spamming should be allowed. If it’s pointed correct it shouldn’t be a problem
which it never will be and it still would be a problem if costed correctly, because the cost of value of one of something =/= 1/x the value of x of that thing in this game, and it never really can be.
No such limit exists, I can bring 15-27 copies of units depending on the unit. HQs right now are 0-15, Elite, Heavy, Fast are 0-18 and Troops are 0-27. Dedicated transports are limited only by points.
gendoikari87 wrote: Limits on units are a stopgap. Just price then correctly the first time and you have no issues
Sometimes the "stopgap" is the better solution. Pricing "correctly" is never going to happen. People will always disagree and there will still ALWAYS be a "best choice" that people will spam. PERIOD.
Limiting datasheets to 0-3 per ARMY removes the option to spam AT ALL. At that point, appropriate price becomes more apparent as you have to make harder decisions.
I'm not sure if this 0-3 datasheets rumour will happen, but I certainly hope it does. Looking back at my last 10 years of list building, I can honestly say about 90% of my lists adhered to this standard. It makes for more varied lists.
-
I 100% disagree, but sure. It's their game. I've always got Starcraft Halve the damage on reapers, jack up flyrant wings 50 pts, make guardsmen 6 ppm, and then see what we've got.
And while I agree with those suggested changes, not everyone does. And that's my point. Changing points values doesn't always solve the problem by itself. It often just removes the issue entirely (as in makes the unit universally considered crap).
But limiting the number over overpowered units a play is ALLOWED to bring solves many problems at once. Those overpowered units are still good, but you are forced to supplement your list with other choices, created tactical variation that can be exploited by BOTH players. This can only make the game better.
I am not saying we don't also need to readjust points. We need that too. But by limiting the access players have (in Matched play) to overpowered units makes playing against those unit much more palatable in the inevitable timeframe prior to any actual change.
So yeah, a stop gap. But an effective one.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but mine is that such restrictions are stupid and suck the fun out of the game. If I want to play tank company I should be able to make play tank company.
gendoikari87 wrote: You are certainly entitled to your opinion but mine is that such restrictions are stupid and suck the fun out of the game. If I want to play tank company I should be able to make play tank company.
Where does that line end? Restrictions exist - whether or not you think various ones effects you more or less shouldn't be the basis for their creation.
Right, but even those might restrict someone from doing something they want to do. It's all irrelevant. *IF* it's good for balance then it should be done.
gendoikari87 wrote: You are certainly entitled to your opinion but mine is that such restrictions are stupid and suck the fun out of the game. If I want to play tank company I should be able to make play tank company.
I know it's a fairly gakky answer to a valid concern but you could still do this, just not in Matched Play. That seems to be GW's overall mindset now; not everything should be viable in Matched Play.
The point system is not the problem. The problem is that the granularity of the point system has been set rather low which means that low point units have less and less points to work with.
They have managed to address it somewhat with keeping weapons separate(which is why we can have a 5 point unit, but a 27 point weapon), but the units themselves when the Index came out should have at least been doubled. This would have allowed for better parity between units and allowed more fine tuning of similar, yet disparate, units.
My guess is that they wanted to keep some point parity with existing editions and allow people to play with similar amount of units in 1500 points between editions.
gendoikari87 wrote: You are certainly entitled to your opinion but mine is that such restrictions are stupid and suck the fun out of the game. If I want to play tank company I should be able to make play tank company.
And you cannot do this with a 0-3 Data slate limit? I don't see why not. Tank company makes me assume Astra Millitarum. If your answer is "well I want to run 10+ of a single type of tank balance be damned." Then you don't want to play a balanced game and there is no point to the discussion. You say fix it with points. Ok lets say Leman Russ spam was a problem and I made them 300 points each. well now you still cannot play tank company and it hurts the guy who wants to run a single leman russ as well.
The following are units of 1-3 so you could take 9
Basilisks
Helhounds
Hydras
Leman Russ Battle Tanks
Leman Russ Demolishers
Your 0-3 limits for "tanks"
Mantacores
Deathstrike missiles
Tank Commanders
Chimeras
Taurox
Super Heavy tanks (which most people don't run more than total)
So literally I cannot see a basis for your complaint. Are you taking 10 Helhounds? 10 Leman Russ battle tanks (or if they are 1 data sheet not 2, 10 total, if they are 2 seperate units you can run 18, which is more points that are in the game)
Literally most complaints seem to be "Raaaah restrictions...I can't do x." But most are not founded in any kind of reality. Are there lists you cannot build sure, but no matter the balance method that will be true.
Oh and if not guard, and you want to do this. You still can, you just cannot spam the same tank over and over, but need to run different tanks. So unless your faction has less than say 3 varieties of tanks (which would seem strange for "tank company") it really does not effect you. Unless your answer is I want to run 9 Plague burst crawlers cause "Tank Company!" To which I say. Too bad, it is bad for the game, so either they get recosted and you cannot do it, or they get restricted and you cannot do it.
I think that the detachment restrictions coupled with the point limit should be all that is needed. If GW feels the need to limit the amount of a certain model in a single army then they should either have a specific rule for that model that limits it or increase the point cost to the point that it can't be taken in large numbers.
If GW does go back to specific limitations then they should just do away with detachments and find some other way of determining CPs.
My suggestion for CP would be a player gets X CPs per #of points played with a bonus for battle forged armies.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I think that the detachment restrictions coupled with the point limit should be all that is needed. If GW feels the need to limit the amount of a certain model in a single army then they should either have a specific rule for that model that limits it or increase the point cost to the point that it can't be taken in large numbers.
If GW does go back to specific limitations then they should just do away with detachments and find some other way of determining CPs.
My suggestion for CP would be a player gets X CPs per #of points played with a bonus for battle forged armies.
That could work. Malign Portents for AOS had a CP-like system (it was every round though) and had an addendum for Matched Play where instead of randomly determining it, you got a specific amount each turn based on the points size, with a bonus for the Harbinger if you fielded one.
Breng77 wrote: Oh and if not guard, and you want to do this. You still can, you just cannot spam the same tank over and over, but need to run different tanks. So unless your faction has less than say 3 varieties of tanks (which would seem strange for "tank company") it really does not effect you. Unless your answer is I want to run 9 Plague burst crawlers cause "Tank Company!" To which I say. Too bad, it is bad for the game, so either they get recosted and you cannot do it, or they get restricted and you cannot do it.
So what do you suggest what I do with my battlewagon #4 (part of my army since 4th edition) and battlewagon #5 (5 were mandatory to field a blitz brigade)?
I never said there wouldn't be lists that were no longer possible to create, or that there would not be models not getting used. The guy with 7 flyrants does what with #s 4-7? It was more a statement of fluff lists that could not be built. You can still run mech orks, though you likely need FW to do so. If you are intent on running those specific models than either you need to convert them or some such.
My issue generally is that people say "well if the points were right we wouldn't need restrictions" without thinking that at some level points are the same as restrictions just that they effect all uses of those units. So are you any better off with your 5 battlewagons if "balance" dictates they are 300 points each? Sure you can still run them at 2000 points, but not with any real success. But raising them to that cost also makes 3 of them worse, or 2 or 1. Whereas saying. Sorry you cannot run 5 but the 3 you can run are really good is a better choice.
True, and yours seems to be that balance is better done by points when that means making all units worse regardless of spam. There is no point of opinion that balancing redundant units is not the same as balancing singular copies of the same unit.
Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.
Oh no, my guard CP battery costs 10 points extra (-1 commander +1 infantry squad). What ever will I do.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.
The issue is that "troops" are pretty arbitrary and not all that balanced between factions. Also unless you are doing % per slot method, guard plays 160 points for 4 troops, whereas say GK pay close to 400.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.
The issue is that "troops" are pretty arbitrary and not all that balanced between factions. Also unless you are doing % per slot method, guard plays 160 points for 4 troops, whereas say GK pay close to 400.
Well, it's not the same troops though is it? I could add that stupid sub-units like spore mines should not count on the troops choices. But the point is not to punish GK. The point is that if you want 7 flyrants then you need 16 troops. 12 troops for 6 flyrants. And if it can't be spore mines then that's -at a minimum- 12 times of 40 pts to bring termagants. Or you can choose your command detachment but then you can play with your 1 CP.
Alternatively we could go back to point percentagies, aka minimum 25% (or even 50%) troops. So in a 2000 list, that's minimum of 500 pts on troops. It worked well for many editions in WHFB and it takes into account the discrepancies between cheap and expensive troops in different armies.
My bottom point is, force more troops, you get more balanced armies, just by virtue of no troop unit to my knowledge is currently gamebreaking.
Hardcaps do work for balance. There are units that are too good when spammed but are perfectly fine, if not under performing, when taken in small numbers, so i would be in favor of some hardcaps.
The point system by it's nature cannot model many interactions, and will never be able to correctly represent many models. The assumption that every model is fine if appropriately costed is FALSE.
That said, the Tau commander is a clear case of a model being too good for the points and NOT the right target for an hardcap.
My point though is that you don't get that, precisely because some armies pay less for those troops than others, so sure your flyrant example works, to some extent (though you could get 7 with 4 termagant squads if you go one battalion and a supreme command)
As for gamebreaking troops
-cultists + poxwalkers
-in a troop heavy meta- khorne berzerkers
- Blood letter bombs?
- Supported Plauge bearers are pretty nasty.
The general point is some armies will be taking those troops already in their build, where as some don't going troop heavy only solves the spam lists a little, and does nothing to those armies that have strong troops.
Guard for instance are already bringing 4 infantry squads (at least) so no issue for them to keep doing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: Hardcaps do work for balance. There are units that are too good when spammed but are perfectly fine, if not under performing, when taken in small numbers, so i would be in favor of some hardcaps.
The point system by it's nature cannot model many interactions, and will never be able to correctly represent many models. The assumption that every model is fine if appropriately costed is FALSE.
That said, the Tau commander is a clear case of a model being too good for the points and NOT the right target for an hardcap.
100% this, look at the Plague burst crawler. Is it too good for its points if you have 1 or 2. Maybe, is it too good if it is the only target in the army? yup.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.
The issue is that "troops" are pretty arbitrary and not all that balanced between factions. Also unless you are doing % per slot method, guard plays 160 points for 4 troops, whereas say GK pay close to 400.
Well, it's not the same troops though is it? I could add that stupid sub-units like spore mines should not count on the troops choices. But the point is not to punish GK. The point is that if you want 7 flyrants then you need 16 troops. 12 troops for 6 flyrants. And if it can't be spore mines then that's -at a minimum- 12 times of 40 pts to bring termagants. Or you can choose your command detachment but then you can play with your 1 CP.
Alternatively we could go back to point percentagies, aka minimum 25% (or even 50%) troops. So in a 2000 list, that's minimum of 500 pts on troops. It worked well for many editions in WHFB and it takes into account the discrepancies between cheap and expensive troops in different armies.
My bottom point is, force more troops, you get more balanced armies, just by virtue of no troop unit to my knowledge is currently gamebreaking.
All this does is force soup even more and make stuff like IG and Cultists even more of a must-have because troop units aren't balanced, especially when it comes to generating CP.
I hope they either reward CP per amount of points spent on troops or just disconnect it from list building entirely and just give everyone 3 per 500pts or something.
Forcing everyone to play X is a big no in my book when it comes to a creative game like this. Reward troop choices sure, but don't make them obligatory.
My guesses revolve mostly around Detachments, personally. Some repairs might include:
Reducing the number of Detatchments per point level by 1. (So, 1 up to 1000 pts, 2 up to 2000, etc).
Changing the Supreme Command Detatchment to a -1 CP instead of a +1 CP (Personally, I'd flag it at -3., but.)
Changing the Super Heavy detatchment to -1 and limit it to a single Super Heavy. (Note: This would require that knights get some helo.)
Create a list of one-per-army and one-per-Detatchment slots akin to the current Commander cap for Tau. One Master or the Chapter or Primarch per army, one Captain/Lord/Prince per detachment, etc.
In essence, put some shape into the Detachments since point fixs and the like are for Fall, not Spring, and this would be a core area to make adjustments in.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.
The issue is that "troops" are pretty arbitrary and not all that balanced between factions. Also unless you are doing % per slot method, guard plays 160 points for 4 troops, whereas say GK pay close to 400.
Well, it's not the same troops though is it? I could add that stupid sub-units like spore mines should not count on the troops choices. But the point is not to punish GK. The point is that if you want 7 flyrants then you need 16 troops. 12 troops for 6 flyrants. And if it can't be spore mines then that's -at a minimum- 12 times of 40 pts to bring termagants. Or you can choose your command detachment but then you can play with your 1 CP.
Alternatively we could go back to point percentagies, aka minimum 25% (or even 50%) troops. So in a 2000 list, that's minimum of 500 pts on troops. It worked well for many editions in WHFB and it takes into account the discrepancies between cheap and expensive troops in different armies.
My bottom point is, force more troops, you get more balanced armies, just by virtue of no troop unit to my knowledge is currently gamebreaking.
Naw, can still bring 6 flyrants with 12 ripper swarms for massive board control.
Galas wrote: I disagree. The Index version had worse balance and a lot less options.
The game is more balanced to you with -1 to hit army traits and stratagem levels ranging from space marines to eldar? Come on man - try harder.
I'll say that it is more balanced than index. You have a couple of spikes here and there, but you pull those out and the vast majority of armies do fine. Orks & IK need love and i'm sure some others need some more tools to make more varied lists, but they can compete.
How is it more balanced than index? Somehow adding more rules and a larger power gap between armies due to unbalanced strategems and army traits - somehow made the game more balanced in your opinion? Buffing flyrants and shinning spears and dark reapers made the game more balanced?
Xenomancers wrote: How is it more balanced than index? Somehow adding more rules and a larger power gap between armies due to unbalanced strategems and army traits - somehow made the game more balanced in your opinion? Buffing flyrants and shinning spears and dark reapers made the game more balanced?
I should clarify as more balanced for codex armies. When 8th started who was king? RG. Because he had hands down the most potent force multiplier available. Conscripts were on the other side of that. Like I said - there are a few spikes to hammer down, but Flyrants aren't unbeatable. Neither are DR & SS. There have been several leveling FAQs and changes. We've just been waiting for this one a bit longer than expected.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.
So what you're saying is 'I play guard and am sick of occasionally losing games to other armies, change it so that I can faceroll over everyone else pls.' What nonsense.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.
So what you're saying is 'I play guard and am sick of occasionally losing games to other armies, change it so that I can faceroll over everyone else pls.' What nonsense.
I play gunline tyranids, thousand sons and devilfish/piranha tau. You can also see it in my signature. You were so close.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.
The issue is that "troops" are pretty arbitrary and not all that balanced between factions. Also unless you are doing % per slot method, guard plays 160 points for 4 troops, whereas say GK pay close to 400.
Well, it's not the same troops though is it? I could add that stupid sub-units like spore mines should not count on the troops choices. But the point is not to punish GK. The point is that if you want 7 flyrants then you need 16 troops. 12 troops for 6 flyrants. And if it can't be spore mines then that's -at a minimum- 12 times of 40 pts to bring termagants. Or you can choose your command detachment but then you can play with your 1 CP.
Alternatively we could go back to point percentagies, aka minimum 25% (or even 50%) troops. So in a 2000 list, that's minimum of 500 pts on troops. It worked well for many editions in WHFB and it takes into account the discrepancies between cheap and expensive troops in different armies.
My bottom point is, force more troops, you get more balanced armies, just by virtue of no troop unit to my knowledge is currently gamebreaking.
You don't get more balanced armies, you get armies with good troops dominating the game and everyone else getting screwed, whether it's percentage or price based is irrelevant. There is no point level where tactical marines are better than cultists or necron warriors or infantry platoons.
If this frankly asinine change went through you would never see another loyalist space marine army of any stripe or another custodes army ever again.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.
So what you're saying is 'I play guard and am sick of occasionally losing games to other armies, change it so that I can faceroll over everyone else pls.' What nonsense.
I play gunline tyranids, thousand sons and devilfish/piranha tau. You can also see it in my signature. You were so close.
This FAQ delay has to hurt model sales already in some minor way. Everyone I know have all of their projects on halt until we see what drops. Likewise, motivation to attend old meta tournaments is plummeting.
Earth127 wrote: Minor being the operative word. I don't know anyone holding of on purchase because of it.
The only thing it changes for me is what I might paint to get ready for a tournament. I expect to see generally good parity among most units in the future so i'll buy whatever.
Therion wrote: This FAQ delay has to hurt model sales already in some minor way. Everyone I know have all of their projects on halt until we see what drops. Likewise, motivation to attend old meta tournaments is plummeting.
Alternatively we could go back to point percentagies, aka minimum 25% (or even 50%) troops. So in a 2000 list, that's minimum of 500 pts on troops. It worked well for many editions in WHFB and it takes into account the discrepancies between cheap and expensive troops in different armies.
My bottom point is, force more troops, you get more balanced armies, just by virtue of no troop unit to my knowledge is currently gamebreaking.
I'd agree if they put Windrunners back into Troops. No way am I going to play armies with a horde of Guardians, Kabalites, and/or Dire Avengers. There is a reason why I never played Warhammer Fantasy: I don't want to paint a horde of the same infantry troop model.
Alternatively we could go back to point percentagies, aka minimum 25% (or even 50%) troops. So in a 2000 list, that's minimum of 500 pts on troops. It worked well for many editions in WHFB and it takes into account the discrepancies between cheap and expensive troops in different armies.
My bottom point is, force more troops, you get more balanced armies, just by virtue of no troop unit to my knowledge is currently gamebreaking.
I'd agree if they put Windrunners back into Troops. No way am I going to play armies with a horde of Guardians, Kabalites, and/or Dire Avengers. There is a reason why I never played Warhammer Fantasy: I don't want to paint a horde of the same infantry troop model.
I don't know why everybody thinks the solution is to upend the game like this. Forcing more troops doesn't feel like Warhammer - I want reasons to take a variety of models that look hella cool instead of feeling forced to fill my army with spam, whether it's due to balancing or because the rules say so.
Therion wrote: This FAQ delay has to hurt model sales already in some minor way. Everyone I know have all of their projects on halt until we see what drops. Likewise, motivation to attend old meta tournaments is plummeting.
GW needs to get this patch out. Fast.
Oh its absolutely stopped my purchases which is probably the silver lining here to be honest
Earth127 wrote: Minor being the operative word. I don't know anyone holding of on purchase because of it.
I'm not buying anymore Pathfinders if there's a chance of them becoming straight up illegal to run in 2k games.
About only realistic way that rumour is true if it's per detachment rather than army.
At which point it solves nothing as for command points your taking 3 detachments anyway so its 3x3 so 9 of a single unit, still pretty spamable.
Yeah but GW isn't going to create such a sales prohibite restriction(and for once it would be right decision for wrong reason. Limits aren't balance fixes. Doesn't fix problem. It just bandaids. It's sweeping dust under blanket hoping nobody sees the problem that still exists. Rather than limitations just fix the problem instead)
It does limit by making sure there's no 10+ copies of same unit at least.
The ”it doesn’t fix the problem it’s just a band aid” line that gets spewed around is a fallacy.
It never occurred to you that a designer may think the game is tactically more interesting when lists aren’t so polarised? An all flyers list or an all tough crawlers list or an all horde makes 40K a game of matchups and less about generalship. Now some of you may even prefer it that way so the flaws in your gameplay are hidden under the absurdity of the list, or of course because of myriad other reasons, but a designer may deem otherwise.
Nobody anywhere is claiming that 3 max would fix the game just by itself. It however is a starting point the game needs but many players don’t want. Points costs need adjustment too, and some special rules toned up/down.
The argument ”it doesn’t fix the game” is trying to deny the designers a starting point because it somehow is ’t a magical instant cure all. It’s a neverending process where it’s allowed to go back and forth, and the goal isn’t balance, but better balance.
Therion wrote: The ”it doesn’t fix the problem it’s just a band aid” line that gets spewed around is a fallacy.
It never occurred to you that a designer may think the game is tactically more interesting when lists aren’t so polarised? An all flyers list or an all tough crawlers list or an all horde makes 40K a game of matchups and less about generalship. Now some of you may even prefer it that way so the flaws in your gameplay are hidden under the absurdity of the list, or of course because of myriad other reasons, but a designer may deem otherwise.
Nobody anywhere is claiming that 3 max would fix the game just by itself. It however is a starting point the game needs but many players don’t want. Points costs need adjustment too, and some special rules toned up/down.
The argument ”it doesn’t fix the game” is trying to deny the designers a starting point because it somehow is ’t a magical instant cure all. It’s a neverending process where it’s allowed to go back and forth, and the goal isn’t balance, but better balance.
Better balance is all fine and dandy, but not when it comes at the cost of lists that never did anything wrong to begin with. My combined arms, non spammy Tau shouldn't get invalidated just because someone decided to take 7 Flying Hivetyrants to a tournament.
Therion wrote: The ”it doesn’t fix the problem it’s just a band aid” line that gets spewed around is a fallacy.
It never occurred to you that a designer may think the game is tactically more interesting when lists aren’t so polarised? An all flyers list or an all tough crawlers list or an all horde makes 40K a game of matchups and less about generalship. Now some of you may even prefer it that way so the flaws in your gameplay are hidden under the absurdity of the list, or of course because of myriad other reasons, but a designer may deem otherwise.
Nobody anywhere is claiming that 3 max would fix the game just by itself. It however is a starting point the game needs but many players don’t want. Points costs need adjustment too, and some special rules toned up/down.
The argument ”it doesn’t fix the game” is trying to deny the designers a starting point because it somehow is ’t a magical instant cure all. It’s a neverending process where it’s allowed to go back and forth, and the goal isn’t balance, but better balance.
Are we talking about balance or appearances?
Of course if you dont' care about balance limit if you want. I would for a change want balanced game for a change. Or even like half balanced.
If you just add limitations GAME IS STILL UNBALANCED.
Fix that. Then you don't even get the spam because there's no need to spam.
But yeah sure guess some people want unbalanced game instead. Each to his own I guess.
Therion wrote: The ”it doesn’t fix the problem it’s just a band aid” line that gets spewed around is a fallacy.
It never occurred to you that a designer may think the game is tactically more interesting when lists aren’t so polarised? An all flyers list or an all tough crawlers list or an all horde makes 40K a game of matchups and less about generalship. Now some of you may even prefer it that way so the flaws in your gameplay are hidden under the absurdity of the list, or of course because of myriad other reasons, but a designer may deem otherwise.
Nobody anywhere is claiming that 3 max would fix the game just by itself. It however is a starting point the game needs but many players don’t want. Points costs need adjustment too, and some special rules toned up/down.
The argument ”it doesn’t fix the game” is trying to deny the designers a starting point because it somehow is ’t a magical instant cure all. It’s a neverending process where it’s allowed to go back and forth, and the goal isn’t balance, but better balance.
Are we talking about balance or appearances?
Of course if you dont' care about balance limit if you want. I would for a change want balanced game for a change. Or even like half balanced.
If you just add limitations GAME IS STILL UNBALANCED.
Fix that. Then you don't even get the spam because there's no need to spam.
But yeah sure guess some people want unbalanced game instead. Each to his own I guess.
There is no way to fix balance without restrictions and have it limit spam because spam creates skew lists which leads to imbalance. No matter what you cost things spamming to skew lists will occur with whatever the better units are for a particular role.
There is no way to fix balance without restrictions and have it limit spam because spam creates skew lists which leads to imbalance. No matter what you cost things spamming to skew lists will occur with whatever the better units are for a particular role.
Ah yeah sorry I forgot. Units don't have this thing called "points value" and problem wasn't that units were too good for their points. Oh no. It was simply you could take same for all the...oh wait without point costs to balance with how did you build army?
Points are good but not the be-all end-all of balance. Synergies, scenarios, opposing units are hard to capture in points. A lasscannon is worth a lot against tanks but no one is gna us eit against GEQ.
There is no way to fix balance without restrictions and have it limit spam because spam creates skew lists which leads to imbalance. No matter what you cost things spamming to skew lists will occur with whatever the better units are for a particular role.
Ah yeah sorry I forgot. Units don't have this thing called "points value" and problem wasn't that units were too good for their points. Oh no. It was simply you could take same for all the...oh wait without point costs to balance with how did you build army?
If spam is allowed points costs become less valid unless you put them on a sliding scale where each additional unit costs more. A single flyrant is powerful but not overly so the spam is what is overly powerful. If you cost it to the point where that is not the case a single tyrant becomes useless as well. There is no ideal scenario where all units are equally viable and interesting and unique and can be taken in basically unlimited numbers.
If spam is allowed points costs become less valid unless you put them on a sliding scale where each additional unit costs more. A single flyrant is powerful but not overly so the spam is what is overly powerful. If you cost it to the point where that is not the case a single tyrant becomes useless as well. There is no ideal scenario where all units are equally viable and interesting and unique and can be taken in basically unlimited numbers.
This is mostly not true. Skew lists are stronger than lists that present a variety of defensive profiles, but this is not because they only have one unit. It's because they bring a bunch of units that have similar defensive profiles -- it's a skew list whether it's a ton of Leman Russes or whether it's some Leman Russes, some Manticores, and some Basilisks. The reason that you see flyrants spammed instead of a mix of Tyranid monsters is that flyrants are just much better than the other monsters for their points, and this is mostly independent of the number of flyrants and other monsters you already have in your list. A single flyrant clearly is overly powerful if you just compare it to what other units provide for the same cost. It's just that this isn't going to be obvious in a game because luck will overwhelm the effect of 10% of your list being 15% too good.
If you want to address the skew problem and make it reasonable to take an army that presents both GEQ and tank profiles for enemy fire, you've got to do a lot more than just restrict a couple of units. You need to make it so that you just can't do all the things you're wanting to do while neglecting an entire class of units.
Edit: Tyrants are actually one of the least spammable units. They're supposedly paying for Synapse and Shadow in the Warp, which you don't need everywhere. They're supposedly paying for 2 psychic powers per turn, and with 7+ Tyrants you literally cannot make use of all of these (and lbr at least 2 of their powers are pretty bad). If you're playing with beta smite rules you're going to have issues there too. They're supposedly paying for 1 denial per turn, and you rarely need that many of these. A single Tyrant gets to leverage all of these advantages to the fullest, whereas you're just wasting them to a large extent when you spam. That Tyrants get spammed anyway just goes to show how good they are.
Also restriction CAN be said to be a band-aid fix when you consider that list building being so open and freeform was one of the main selling points of this edition. If an FAQ is going 180 on what is one of the CORE FEATURES of an edition it is NOT a good change.
While that is true, restrictions on specific units give at least some reduction in the power of skew lists because many armies don't have a ton of units with one profile. I'm not suggesting points don't need addressing simply that points alone cannot prevent spam. Are tyrants too strong for their points, sure, can basically any army handle 1 or 2 (or maybe 3) yeah, there is a reason 7 is powerful, it is that it allows a few to die and still have them do their job. Let me put it to you this way. If you limit tyrants to 3 I don't think you would see 3 in every army because they are significantly less powerful at that point. It isn't about 10% of your list being 15% too good, its that the 10% dies to the enemy too fast to be worth 10% of your points, unless the other 60% of those 15% too strong units come into play.
Which makes another point allowing spam exacerbates any overly efficient units. If we go with the 10% being worth 15% that you used. That means 7 tyrants are essentially netting you 35% extra value
I agree that to truly fix skew lists you need to restrict a lot more than what is being done, but to suggest that that means nothing should be restricted seems off to me.
"Well less optimal skew lists will still happen, so we should do nothing."
IMO points will never be perfectly balanced it is super improbable. Given that I'd rather see fewer of each imbalanced unit on the table.
gendoikari87 wrote: Again that’s just like your opinion man. We get it, we disagree. stop clogging the thread and drop it.
A more thought out opinion, perhaps. Yours is based on "restrictions bad, no like" and all you say is that. If you don't want to be debate then don't respond.
All you have to do is look at some of our current restrictions:
- Point level
- Detachment
- Unit type
- Number of detachments (suggested, but highly used)
- Spell casting
gendoikari87 wrote: Again that’s just like your opinion man. We get it, we disagree. stop clogging the thread and drop it.
Sorry it isn't an opinion it is a fact. Point me to a balanced miniatures game with no restrictions on your list building. For the life of me I cannot think of one. Are you telling me you believe that every unit has a magical point cost where it is:
1.) Well balanced no matter how many you bring
2.) Well balanced no matter what you bring with it.
Sorry I don't believe that to be an achievable goal, every other game in that I can think of has some limits the list building, either extremely small army size, restrictions on specific units, or restrictions on slots of units, etc. Right now 40k has essentially has none of those so spam is king because perfect balance is improbable so whatever is best will get spammed. So I can either sit it out in hopes that one day magically everything will be balanced, or I can say hey this restriction does a decent job helping to balance the game.
Your Opinion seems to be "restrictions bad, me no like, I'd rather have 7 flyrants, than be restricted for the sake of balance." Which if you don't care about balance, that's fine, but it doesn't make the idea that restrictions add more balance wrong.
gendoikari87 wrote: Again that’s just like your opinion man. We get it, we disagree. stop clogging the thread and drop it.
A more thought out opinion, perhaps. Yours is based on "restrictions bad, no like" and all you say is that. If you don't want to be debate then don't respond.
All you have to do is look at some of our current restrictions:
- Point level
- Detachment
- Unit type
- Number of detachments (suggested, but highly used)
- Spell casting
yup, also stratagems and unit size.
I mean why should we have those? Strats should just cost enough CP so that we don't want to spam them in one phase, that is better than restricting to 1 per phase. Units should also be allowed to be as large as someone desires them to be, just cost them so it isn't a problem.
Breng77 wrote: While that is true, restrictions on specific units give at least some reduction in the power of skew lists because many armies don't have a ton of units with one profile. I'm not suggesting points don't need addressing simply that points alone cannot prevent spam. Are tyrants too strong for their points, sure, can basically any army handle 1 or 2 (or maybe 3) yeah, there is a reason 7 is powerful, it is that it allows a few to die and still have them do their job. Let me put it to you this way. If you limit tyrants to 3 I don't think you would see 3 in every army because they are significantly less powerful at that point. It isn't about 10% of your list being 15% too good, its that the 10% dies to the enemy too fast to be worth 10% of your points, unless the other 60% of those 15% too strong units come into play.
Which makes another point allowing spam exacerbates any overly efficient units. If we go with the 10% being worth 15% that you used. That means 7 tyrants are essentially netting you 35% extra value
I agree that to truly fix skew lists you need to restrict a lot more than what is being done, but to suggest that that means nothing should be restricted seems off to me.
"Well less optimal skew lists will still happen, so we should do nothing."
IMO points will never be perfectly balanced it is super improbable. Given that I'd rather see fewer of each imbalanced unit on the table.
This seems pretty much spot on to me. Good post.
I personally think that the direction of the last few editions with unlimited allies and then unlimited Foc options has been a mistake.
The ally idea was a fairly blatent money grab in 6th, and part of GW's giant middle finger to game balance and tournement play in that era.
The FOC expansion in 7th with their detachments came with a lot of fluffy rules and requirements that quickly became unbalanced because it's difficult to balance so many abilities.
8th reduced the allies somewhat, but clearly they are still a real issue. It's always going to be significantly harder to balance imperium as a whole than it is a single codex. I'm honestly not sure why GW thought it was a good idea to effectively throw out the FOC and allow things like no troop armies, unlimited heavy support, etc, when do many aspects of the game's design over the years has been done based on the concept of some kind of restrictions. Otherwise there isn't really much of a point in having distinctions like elite, heavy, and fast attack.
Martel732 wrote: I can spam anything i want in starcraft. Way more balanced than 40k. It's the points values. Period.
There are other balancing factors in that game, build time etc. There are also far fewer units (as far as I know) and no unit options. You also build as you go, rather than come to the table with a preset list. The games aren't comparable at all.
Martel732 wrote: I can spam anything i want in starcraft. Way more balanced than 40k. It's the points values. Period.
Yeah, but that's a disingenuous analogy. In starcraft, if my opponent spams units (like say mutalisks), then I can build units that counter them (like vikings). 40k doesn't have a reactive, and fluid composition that can be changed during the game to tailor your list more for what you are facing. So you get situations where an opponent spams mutalisks, and you are stuck with hellions and can't tech change. GG.
Martel732 wrote: I can spam anything i want in starcraft. Way more balanced than 40k. It's the points values. Period.
There are other balancing factors in that game, build time etc. There are also far fewer units (as far as I know) and no unit options. You also build as you go, rather than come to the table with a preset list. The games aren't comparable at all.
Fog of war
Mirrored maps from a finite list
"Points" being resources are equal for both sides
A 15 point model may indeed be worth 15 points in a certain situation.
That same 15 point model may only be worth 9 points in another, and may be worth 22 points in yet another.
An example would be a model with high defensive capabilities would be worth much more in a scenario where they had to hold objectives than they would be in a scenario where they had to go on the offensive.
Making the offensive units today cost more would simply peel away one layer of min maxing and expose the layer underneath for players to exploit.
The layers I feel are infinite. You would peel them away forever and still get nowhere. Especially in a game like 40k, which has other issues that combine to form the problems we have in the game.
Poor point costing is indeed a problem. We also have the ancient IGOUGO system and the over abstraction of the game removing things like terrain impact and cover.
Martel732 wrote: I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.
You've never been rushed? Spam has totally been a problem throughout SC's history, which is why things like the Spawning Pool gets increased build time.
Rushes can be countered in deterministic ways, especially via scouting. No gas? Look out! I get no such warning about dark reapers or triple manticore.
Martel732 wrote: I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.
Taking this approach runs into another issue: Regular Dude takes 1 flyrant in his army. At that quantity, the flyrant is not significantly overpowered. Other Dude takes 7 flyrants. At THAT quantity, flyrants are overpowered (for reasons already stated elsewhere, by others). So: To make Other Dude stop spamming flyrants, you propose to price a single one at anti-spam levels, but in the process you screw over Regular Dude, who's now faced with paying the "anti-spam" tax just to get his lone, not-abusive-at-all, flyrant on the table. Games Workshop, for better or worse, appears to be trying to balance the game around Regular Dude. A spam-restriction, if that's what's coming down the pipe, would help with that in ways that simply increasing points until spam is impractical would not.
The lone hive tyrant should cost more than it currently does. T7, 4++ and ability to be reserved, AND ability to move quickly after dropping SHOULD be expensive. Oh, and it's a psyker.
Martel732 wrote: I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.
To me this seems very obvious to me and I agree with you. The alternative is that it's okay for a unit to be undercosted if you can only take a few of them.
Look at what happens in AI with the red/black game. You can write a skew algorithm, and it can beat just about any target you want. However, last time I read up on it, TAC algorithms (tit-for-tat) were king in broader competitions.
StarCraft had many points at which it was unbalanced.
They then iterated and patched it. They can run games with altered rules much faster, and can distribute updated rules much faster. So the feedback loop is much, much tighter. If they decided the Carrier cost 10 gas too much today, they could get that into lower environments today, promote the patch tomorrow, and everyone could have it in a 24-hour cycle.
GW could do some internal playtesting today.
They could send it off to playtesters, and get preliminary results in a week, more robust results in a month.
They could then merge that into the rules, for publication.
Then, in 3 months (guestimate), people could start picking up the books.
In 1 more month, people could reasonably be expecting people to know of the new book and what it changed
In another couple months, everyone affected could be assumed to be on the new rulesset.
That also assumes serial changes. But with a cycle time of *months*, it's highly unlikely to be serial.
I would bet that StarCraft have had far more revisions - at least 10x public patches with balance changes than GW rules publications/FAQs - than 40k, in the same timeframe.
Without changing the model in which rules are delivered, there's no way GW's feedback loop can be tight enough to get anywhere close to what StarCraft - or even it's less-balanced competitors - can be.
Martel732 wrote: I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.
To me this seems very obvious to me and I agree with you. The alternative is that it's okay for a unit to be undercosted if you can only take a few of them.
Why not. There're reasons you can only have 1 Warlord and why there's a hard limit on relics, etc..
It's fun and breaks up the monotony to have things that are strictly better than other parts but limited as to not create (too many) balance problems. If everything is always allowed infinitely, there'd still be spam in a mathematically perfectly balanced selection. Just spam that is "balanced" against whatever the other guy is spamming. Great.
Limits on "good" but limited selections and ways to work with them/against them gives texture and tactical depth to a game.
Martel732 wrote: I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.
To me, this seems very obvious to me and I agree with you. The alternative is that it's okay for a unit to be undercosted if you can only take a few of them.
Or that there is not a correct single price for a unit. Units scale differently depending on their builds. Psykers scale worse than none psykers, buff auras scale worse than psykers. Claiming that here is a correct points value for every unit is claiming that all units scale linearly, this clearly isn't the case.
As an example 1 ravager (Dark Eldar) is not worth 140 points, even with a good buff aura, if it is the only vehicle/monster in your army, it's probably worth 100 or so and it ill still blow up before it does anything. 2 Ravagers with a good buff aura are worth somewhere in the 120-130 region, they are still fragile and likely to fail to make their points back before exploding. 2 ravagers in a list with 8 other vehicles are worth 140 (their actual point cost). 3 Ravagers with a buff aura in a list with 8 other vehicles are probably worth the 155 we used to pay for them, they are probably worth 140 without one of either the other vehicles or the buff aura. Is 140 the correct cost for that unit? No idea. Does a correct cost exist? Maybe not. Many other units are similar. Which scenario should things be costed for? If we put upper limits on the number that can be taken and cost for at or near that limit, then things balance better.
You can't have the legendary Firesaber as the Powersword-plus-some that it should be, but also have Shard of Anaris being the You Will Die weapon it should be, when they both cost the exact same.
There will not be a perfect price, but i guarantee there IS a price where each unit is neither spammed nor never taken. That's as close as gw can get, i think.
Units get spammed to take advantage of undercostedness. Period. Spamming amplifies the advantage that these undercosted units provide.
Limiting units doesn't solve the undercosted unit issue at all.
Martel732 wrote: I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.
To me this seems very obvious to me and I agree with you. The alternative is that it's okay for a unit to be undercosted if you can only take a few of them.
I've never seen anybody intentionally miss the point with as much fervor and devotion as you two.
I think your point is invalid. I'm not missing it.
With your proposal, there will be three flyrants, then three of the next most undercosted unit, then three of the next most undercosted unit. Codices without any undercosted units still lose.
Martel732 wrote: There will not be a perfect price, but i guarantee there IS a price where each unit is neither spammed nor never taken. That's as close as gw can get, i think.
Units get spammed to take advantage of undercostedness. Period. Spamming amplifies the advantage that these undercosted units provide.
Limiting units doesn't solve the undercosted unit issue at all.
What if something is only undercosted if taken in groups of 4 or more (due to none linear scaling) and you cap it at 3?
Here's an analogy:
A game we're all familiar with where every piece has equal value: Checkers
A game we're all familiar with where there are different pieces with differing values: Chess
The game with different pieces with differing values is much more tactically deep and interesting than the one where all the pieces have the same value.
That said, chess also works as well as it does because it imposes a set roster of pieces on each player, forcing them to make tactical decisions over the course of the game. They can't, for instance, elect to take one less rook and a few less pawns in order to take a second queen.
40K has historically been like chess where players can decide what pieces they're going to opt to play. This hasn't really encouraged tactics on the tabletop so much as it's encouraged optimization of list-building.
Also, 40K has never really been built around the idea that a point spent in one place is always worth a point spent in another place. The different force organization roles have always played a part in what the value of units are likely to be. Heavy Support has always been about laying down damage. Fast Attack has traditionally been about initial board control - moving units to places quickly. Elites are harder to categorize, but generally are units with variant abilities - like Deep Strike or Infiltrate. Troops have largely been less about doing damage than they are about board control - they don't generally get places as quickly as Fast Attack choices, but they do so with more model density per point spent than Fast Attack choices.
This formula worked okay in 3rd and 4th editions. It worked best in 5th edition, which was the edition where Troops had the best board control ability they have ever had. Those were also editions where everyone carried a Troops requirement and where the most unit spam a player could put on the table was generally 3 of any given unit, though there have been some exceptions (4th edition Nidzilla, for instance)
6th edition rescinded the unique board control ability of Troops, which hit them hard, and they haven't really recovered. Obsec doesn't matter so much if ones Troops can simply get blasted off the board by an opponent who decided to invest hard in units that can simply erase them from the board.
One idea would be to return to having only Troops be able to score objectives, with the addition of a generic Stratagem that can allow a non-Troops unit to be scoring for one turn. That would be strong incentive to invest in robust Troops elements while allowing players who want to play other styles of armies to do so without them being an auto-lose because of complete inability to score objectives.
How many points is a Ynnari HQ worth, in a list with no Reapers or Spears? How many points are they worth in a list with Reapers or Spears?
Or, to be extreme to show the point, consider a version of Tacs where their boltguns get +1 S -1AP and +1 RapidFire for each other Tac squad on the board. You clearly believe one such unit would not be worth 13ppm. But if I took 6 of them at 2000pts, would they still not be worth 13ppm?
Martel732 wrote: I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.
To me this seems very obvious to me and I agree with you. The alternative is that it's okay for a unit to be undercosted if you can only take a few of them.
I'm totally for points getting most of the work done, but I can recognize somethings might fall into a grey area.
Bharring wrote: How many points is a Ynnari HQ worth, in a list with no Reapers or Spears? How many points are they worth in a list with Reapers or Spears?
Or, to be extreme to show the point, consider a version of Tacs where their boltguns get +1 S -1AP and +1 RapidFire for each other Tac squad on the board. You clearly believe one such unit would not be worth 13ppm. But if I took 6 of them at 2000pts, would they still not be worth 13ppm?
A lot of playtesting will tell. The point value is average value across a large number of games. There will be anamolous matchups since 40k armies can't be changed on fly like starcraft.
Martel732 wrote: Rushes can be countered in deterministic ways, especially via scouting. No gas? Look out! I get no such warning about dark reapers or triple manticore.
Sure and there are certain caveats to that. Additionally SC doesn't have heroes. WC3 did and they were restricted.
Force multipliers in SC are upgrades, which come with a heavy resource, building, and time trade off.
What pointscost could possibly support using just a few of a unit sometimes if it gets better the more of them you take?
Lets do it this way, to remove some biases:
Fire Warriors gain:
Sphere Expansion: For every other friendly Fire Warrior unit on the board, gain +1S/T/A, and +1 shot when firing Rapid Fire
What point cost, approximately, would you point that at so it has it's uses, but isn't OP
Martel732 wrote: I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.
No it doesn't because cost is not the only balancing factor involved. So you make flyrants, reapers, PBC cost more. Either they cost too much to spam and someone finds the next unbalanced unit to spam (because we are only addressing things one at a time) and this lasts until chapter approved, or They still are undercosted and still get spammed there are just fewer of them. Unfortunately in an "unbound" list building world, if you aren't the best option you may as well be the worst option. Thus until all units are "perfectly balanced" where there is no best option to spam, changing points only changes what gets spammed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: The lone hive tyrant should cost more than it currently does. T7, 4++ and ability to be reserved, AND ability to move quickly after dropping SHOULD be expensive. Oh, and it's a psyker.
yes but that cost is likely not the same cost that would prevent them from getting spammed, which is the issue.
Bharring wrote: What pointscost could possibly support using just a few of a unit sometimes if it gets better the more of them you take?
Lets do it this way, to remove some biases:
Fire Warriors gain:
Sphere Expansion: For every other friendly Fire Warrior unit on the board, gain +1S/T/A, and +1 shot when firing Rapid Fire
What point cost, approximately, would you point that at so it has it's uses, but isn't OP
I wouldn't allow that rule in a game for the exact reason you posted it.
Martel732 wrote: I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.
No it doesn't because cost is not the only balancing factor involved. So you make flyrants, reapers, PBC cost more. Either they cost too much to spam and someone finds the next unbalanced unit to spam (because we are only addressing things one at a time) and this lasts until chapter approved, or They still are undercosted and still get spammed there are just fewer of them. Unfortunately in an "unbound" list building world, if you aren't the best option you may as well be the worst option. Thus until all units are "perfectly balanced" where there is no best option to spam, changing points only changes what gets spammed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: The lone hive tyrant should cost more than it currently does. T7, 4++ and ability to be reserved, AND ability to move quickly after dropping SHOULD be expensive. Oh, and it's a psyker.
yes but that cost is likely not the same cost that would prevent them from getting spammed, which is the issue.
I'd start with upping wings by 50 pts. You don't think that's enough?
Sometimes a band aid fix is better than no fix at all. And some units should be restricted to X per army.
Spam tends to increase the effect of underconsting. If a 200 point model should be 220 that's a 20 point difference. If you then take 7 of that the difficit becomes 140. And thus it ramps up.
Note I am still against universal highlander. But I can understand it's appeal especially for "older" factions with more variety of units.
Because you can't agree on a structural fix. I'll repeat a good band aid is better than a bad fix.
Lore tidbit from End times Thanquol: The Slann helped maintain the vortex but they considered it a band aiid they would have to replace with a better solution later. 10 000 years of thinking and they came up with nothing so the only result was the lizardmen did nothing and the vortex worked.
Most of my issues aren't heroes. It's the 4ppm guardsmen. Because they turn off my heroes by existing.
Right, and I mostly agree with you, but you won't get and more nerfs on IG past 5 points, so, (as an example) if they're still a problem after that are they a problem for just BA or for everyone? How would we easily tell? Because honestly the only games we get to analyze are top tables - we see none of the lists and losses leading up to them.
Now pretend it's Hive Tyrants - they get a point increase and they're still a problem for some armies, but not others and only in large numbers should restriction not be something on the table?
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: Here's an analogy:
A game we're all familiar with where every piece has equal value: Checkers
A game we're all familiar with where there are different pieces with differing values: Chess
The game with different pieces with differing values is much more tactically deep and interesting than the one where all the pieces have the same value.
That said, chess also works as well as it does because it imposes a set roster of pieces on each player, forcing them to make tactical decisions over the course of the game. They can't, for instance, elect to take one less rook and a few less pawns in order to take a second queen.
40K has historically been like chess where players can decide what pieces they're going to opt to play. This hasn't really encouraged tactics on the tabletop so much as it's encouraged optimization of list-building.
Also, 40K has never really been built around the idea that a point spent in one place is always worth a point spent in another place. The different force organization roles have always played a part in what the value of units are likely to be. Heavy Support has always been about laying down damage. Fast Attack has traditionally been about initial board control - moving units to places quickly. Elites are harder to categorize, but generally are units with variant abilities - like Deep Strike or Infiltrate. Troops have largely been less about doing damage than they are about board control - they don't generally get places as quickly as Fast Attack choices, but they do so with more model density per point spent than Fast Attack choices.
This formula worked okay in 3rd and 4th editions. It worked best in 5th edition, which was the edition where Troops had the best board control ability they have ever had. Those were also editions where everyone carried a Troops requirement and where the most unit spam a player could put on the table was generally 3 of any given unit, though there have been some exceptions (4th edition Nidzilla, for instance)
6th edition rescinded the unique board control ability of Troops, which hit them hard, and they haven't really recovered. Obsec doesn't matter so much if ones Troops can simply get blasted off the board by an opponent who decided to invest hard in units that can simply erase them from the board.
One idea would be to return to having only Troops be able to score objectives, with the addition of a generic Stratagem that can allow a non-Troops unit to be scoring for one turn. That would be strong incentive to invest in robust Troops elements while allowing players who want to play other styles of armies to do so without them being an auto-lose because of complete inability to score objectives.
Speaking of chess. People use a point system to rate peices.
Martel732 wrote: I think your point is invalid. I'm not missing it.
With your proposal, there will be three flyrants, then three of the next most undercosted unit, then three of the next most undercosted unit. Codices without any undercosted units still lose.
This assumes that all codices have numerous undercosted units, which they don't. You even claim some have none. No one is claiming that super powerful units don't need point fixes. They do. My claim at least is ok I point fix the flyrant, now they disapear, and everyone spams the next point efficient choice, just like you claim, except now that needs to get fixed as well. But GW is only fixing twice a year (and points might only be once). So now we are stuck with the next big offender until it gets point fixed and gives way to the next biggest offender.
I'd rather see (an you can disagree) a system that says, you can only take 3 of each "undercosted" unit because it will weaken those builds, and prevent "the next undercosted unit" from rotating to the top by getting spammed. Then GW can address points for more units at one time.
"Hey every tyranid list is 3 flyrants, 3 units of hive guard, 3 Mawlocs...." Maybe we should look at the points on those units. Or conversely "no one is taking Pyrovores even with a variety of units in their army, maybe they need a points decrease." Right now we get. "Hey look at those 7 flyrants we need to fix that one unit" with no data on the next big offender available.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think that condition exists in general. Limiting it to three just limits the aggregate utility to 3 (fair price - existing unfair price).
None linear sacling is the norm in 40k. I gave an example above with the ravager, but you can do it with almost any unit. One Black Heart Archon is great, 2 is OK, 3 is a tax, 4 is starting to cripple your army. That is a unit that doesn't work well when spammed, but may be a little undercosted for the first one. This happens in the reverse too. 1 Hive Tyrant with wings is generally a waste of time to bring. 2 is fine. 3 is good. 4 is great. 5+ is silly.
But we have those rules, in effect. Most HQs buff guys around them - the guys they buff are worth more wtih them than without.
Tac Marines can be worthwhile with Bobby G, it seems, but aren't without him (or so the current thought goes)?
Reapers with Ynnari are clearly worht more than 30ppm, but without Ynnari are they still worth as much?
You can say you wouldn't let those rules into the game, but aren't they already here?
Not as extreme. Space marine captains can have finite units in the 6" bubble. At the cost of table coverage, as well. We can't mathematically determine its value, but we can empirically. Your rule just scaled open endedly with no drawbacks.
But we have those rules, in effect. Most HQs buff guys around them - the guys they buff are worth more wtih them than without.
Tac Marines can be worthwhile with Bobby G, it seems, but aren't without him (or so the current thought goes)?
Reapers with Ynnari are clearly worht more than 30ppm, but without Ynnari are they still worth as much?
You can say you wouldn't let those rules into the game, but aren't they already here?
I agree that auras are problematic from a balance prospective. I for one would be happy to see auras go and turn into target activated abilities that could only affect X numbers of units.
Like a LT can buff 1 units
A captain 2
A grand master 3
and RG maybe 4
Something like that would be far easier to balance. You could alter the range of the abilities too - 6" could become 9" or something to give you more freedom to maneuver and make the game more fun. I wish all "aura abiltiies" worked like this.
Bharring wrote: What pointscost could possibly support using just a few of a unit sometimes if it gets better the more of them you take?
Lets do it this way, to remove some biases:
Fire Warriors gain:
Sphere Expansion: For every other friendly Fire Warrior unit on the board, gain +1S/T/A, and +1 shot when firing Rapid Fire
What point cost, approximately, would you point that at so it has it's uses, but isn't OP
I wouldn't allow that rule in a game for the exact reason you posted it.
Martel732 wrote: I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.
No it doesn't because cost is not the only balancing factor involved. So you make flyrants, reapers, PBC cost more. Either they cost too much to spam and someone finds the next unbalanced unit to spam (because we are only addressing things one at a time) and this lasts until chapter approved, or They still are undercosted and still get spammed there are just fewer of them. Unfortunately in an "unbound" list building world, if you aren't the best option you may as well be the worst option. Thus until all units are "perfectly balanced" where there is no best option to spam, changing points only changes what gets spammed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: The lone hive tyrant should cost more than it currently does. T7, 4++ and ability to be reserved, AND ability to move quickly after dropping SHOULD be expensive. Oh, and it's a psyker.
yes but that cost is likely not the same cost that would prevent them from getting spammed, which is the issue.
I'd start with upping wings by 50 pts. You don't think that's enough?
Nope, that makes the 240 base before upgrades. I still think you would see spam, you might just see 6 instead of 7. That is the problem, I think to stop spam they would have to be 300 points or more to counter spam, at which point I'm not sure they are any good when you take 1 because it will die to fast. Just look a Mortarion, he has fallen out of favor because he dies too quickly. Largely the Same with Magnus. Expensive tyrants would be the same. They are good now because you can take enough of them to allow for some dying, and still get to do damage, with the others. If you listen to Matt Root (who brought 7) talk about adepticon, he felt 4 or 5 were too few to win against better armies because you would lose 2 and 2 or 3 were not enough to get the job done. So talking stopping spam through points, only hurts the guy who was only bringing 1 or 2, because the top guy isn't bringing any at some point.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think that condition exists in general. Limiting it to three just limits the aggregate utility to 3 (fair price - existing unfair price).
None linear sacling is the norm in 40k. I gave an example above with the ravager, but you can do it with almost any unit. One Black Heart Archon is great, 2 is OK, 3 is a tax, 4 is starting to cripple your army. That is a unit that doesn't work well when spammed, but may be a little undercosted for the first one. This happens in the reverse too. 1 Hive Tyrant with wings is generally a waste of time to bring. 2 is fine. 3 is good. 4 is great. 5+ is silly.
That archon would always be better off being a flying hive tyrant. What you are talking about is a small inefficiency is multiplied by how many times you have to take the unit. 4 bad units it's worse than 1 bad unit. 4 good units is better than 1. This is just efficiency in practice. The problem is some units are more efficient than others. If an archon was 40 points instead of the 83 or something he is now - he would also be spammed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Maybe. So maybe the number is 70. But limiting it to 3 doesn't fix the actual unit.
My personal opinion that the FHT needs to have it's MRC (its amazing FREE close combat weapon) needs to cost 20 points. I mean...
it's ap-3 d3 damage on 6's auto 3 damage and AP -6. REROLL ALL FAILED WOUNDS. Easily a 20 points weapon.
After that - it might need to go up by another 10 or so points but lets just start with the weapon.
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: Here's an analogy:
A game we're all familiar with where every piece has equal value: Checkers
A game we're all familiar with where there are different pieces with differing values: Chess
The game with different pieces with differing values is much more tactically deep and interesting than the one where all the pieces have the same value.
That said, chess also works as well as it does because it imposes a set roster of pieces on each player, forcing them to make tactical decisions over the course of the game. They can't, for instance, elect to take one less rook and a few less pawns in order to take a second queen.
40K has historically been like chess where players can decide what pieces they're going to opt to play. This hasn't really encouraged tactics on the tabletop so much as it's encouraged optimization of list-building.
Also, 40K has never really been built around the idea that a point spent in one place is always worth a point spent in another place. The different force organization roles have always played a part in what the value of units are likely to be. Heavy Support has always been about laying down damage. Fast Attack has traditionally been about initial board control - moving units to places quickly. Elites are harder to categorize, but generally are units with variant abilities - like Deep Strike or Infiltrate. Troops have largely been less about doing damage than they are about board control - they don't generally get places as quickly as Fast Attack choices, but they do so with more model density per point spent than Fast Attack choices.
This formula worked okay in 3rd and 4th editions. It worked best in 5th edition, which was the edition where Troops had the best board control ability they have ever had. Those were also editions where everyone carried a Troops requirement and where the most unit spam a player could put on the table was generally 3 of any given unit, though there have been some exceptions (4th edition Nidzilla, for instance)
6th edition rescinded the unique board control ability of Troops, which hit them hard, and they haven't really recovered. Obsec doesn't matter so much if ones Troops can simply get blasted off the board by an opponent who decided to invest hard in units that can simply erase them from the board.
One idea would be to return to having only Troops be able to score objectives, with the addition of a generic Stratagem that can allow a non-Troops unit to be scoring for one turn. That would be strong incentive to invest in robust Troops elements while allowing players who want to play other styles of armies to do so without them being an auto-lose because of complete inability to score objectives.
Speaking of chess. People use a point system to rate peices.
Martel732 wrote: Maybe. So maybe the number is 70. But limiting it to 3 doesn't fix the actual unit.
No but it does fix the list of 7 hive tyrants, much more easily than trying to guess at the right number of points to increase the unit to make it "non-spamable" and it doesn't penalize people who want to run them.
Personally I am hoping for the 0-3 fix in this FAQ, and no points changes (or maybe a few changes to top offenders). Then points changes in CA after we have time to see what the top offenders in each book are (what gets spammed 0-3 in every top army).
As I have said I'm not sure if limited to 3 Hive tyrants are so OP as to need large points change. If not limited I think they need a rather significant one.
The issue here might be that you want every unit to be well balanced (ideally) whereas I only care if the game is well balanced In the long run sure I'd like to see every unit be viable, but in the short term I'd rather see a fix that will address all possible units that will be spammed rather than wait for the meta to change and address it then.
40k is literally the only wargame I have ever been exposed to where the community this obstinately clings to the idea that restrictions are bad and points alone can fix everything... Redundancy is a powerful weapon, far more powerful then many seem to understand, and the power behind it goes way beyond things being simply improperly point costed. I don't know how many of you played fantasy but my username speaks to the power of redundancy, if any of you were familiar with Warhammer 8th edition you know of what I speak, and you know that triple chimeras rarely appeared on the tournament circuit despite GW never fixing their power, because of almost all of the restrictive comp systems in play making it crippling to take more then 2. Points alone do not really fix this, because what is well costed when taken alone can become crazy when taken in multiples of 4 or 5.
Someone above claimed that the same can be achieved by taking multiple units of similar types, but it is not the same unless their profiles and utilities are nearly identical. In a wargame the power of redundancy is very difficult to break without introducing restrictions like unit caps, force org charts, or something along the lines of swedish comp back from warhammer fantasy. Restrictions are 100% necessary for a balanced wargame, and the rumors about a hard 3 unit cap would be a good starting point, though as others have mentioned not good enough on its own.
tripchimeras wrote: 40k is literally the only wargame I have ever been exposed to where the community this obstinately clings to the idea that restrictions are bad and points alone can fix everything... Redundancy is a powerful weapon, far more powerful then many seem to understand, and the power behind it goes way beyond things being simply improperly point costed. I don't know how many of you played fantasy but my username speaks to the power of redundancy, if any of you were familiar with Warhammer 8th edition you know of what I speak, and you know that triple chimeras rarely appeared on the tournament circuit despite GW never fixing their power, because of almost all of the restrictive comp systems in play making it crippling to take more then 2. Points alone do not really fix this, because what is well costed when taken alone can become crazy when taken in multiples of 4 or 5.
Someone above claimed that the same can be achieved by taking multiple units of similar types, but it is not the same unless their profiles and utilities are nearly identical. In a wargame the power of redundancy is very difficult to break without introducing restrictions like unit caps, force org charts, or something along the lines of swedish comp back from warhammer fantasy. Restrictions are 100% necessary for a balanced wargame, and the rumors about a hard 3 unit cap would be a good starting point, though as others have mentioned not good enough on its own.
OFC redundancy is powerful. Eventually an opponent runs out of effective weapons to deal with a redundant profile because they brought a TAC list. It can be a disadvantage if your opponent is prepared for it though - so it is not an issue of limitation - it is an issue of tactics.
Martel732 wrote: 30 dark reapers is still a thing with 0-3. That alone makes it insufficient.
By itself yes it is insufficient at addressing dark reaper spam. Though I would rather face 3 x 10 dark reapers than 1 x 9 and 3 x 3 like I did this weekend or 1x 10 and 7x 3. They are harder to hide, don't all have LOS ignoring weapons, are easier to target effectively etc. For what its worth though I think rules changes are needed to fix dark reapers not points changes, I think any reasonable points change to them as is makes them crap compared to other options.
Martel732 wrote: 30 dark reapers is still a thing with 0-3. That alone makes it insufficient.
By itself yes it is insufficient at addressing dark reaper spam. Though I would rather face 3 x 10 dark reapers than 1 x 9 and 3 x 3 like I did this weekend or 1x 10 and 7x 3. They are harder to hide, don't all have LOS ignoring weapons, are easier to target effectively etc. For what its worth though I think rules changes are needed to fix dark reapers not points changes, I think any reasonable points change to them as is makes them crap compared to other options.
Yea part of DR spam is getting tons of Tempest Launchers in the mix. Who doesn't want 7 S4 AP2 shots?
With Ynnari I'd rather face 9x3 only because of the fact that one squad gets to shoot twice, but it is close, if there is a lot of LOS blocking terrain I'll take the 3 x 9.. Non- ynnari 3 x 9 all day. The real question is would you rather face 3 x 9 or 1 x 9 and 6 x 3. Or 2 x 9 and 3 x 3 or some other method, the answer to that question IMO is always 3 x 9.
Which fallacy? I'm not sure that sentence even makes sense.
A fallacy is defined as a mistaken belief.
The fallacy of points is that points equal balance. They don't and never have. These discussions have been going on around the internet since AOL dialup chatroom days.
Therefore raising points on undercost units won't fix the balance in the game, it will simply make other units over/undercost and start the circle over again. The only way points equal balance iis if you are only using one scenario. Once you use multiple scenario, the point variables of a model change because a model's worth will vary from scenario to scenario. Sometimes minorly. Sometimes drastically.
Martel732 wrote: I think your point is invalid. I'm not missing it.
With your proposal, there will be three flyrants, then three of the next most undercosted unit, then three of the next most undercosted unit. Codices without any undercosted units still lose.
I have made no proposals, so I'm not sure what you mean here. You were arguing against limits because they are 'bad'. You've been shown how they can be good, how they exist currently, yet have failed to actually support why they are 'bad'. You've also failed to articulate how another solution isn't fundamentally worse, or how points balancing can account for the various factors that can affect a unit midgame that change its relative value. Secondary to that, can you define, objectively, what an 'undercosted' unit looks like so that everybody knows, definitively, which units are undercosts and by how much? Is that just another wishy washy subjective decision you've made unilaterally?
Martel732 wrote: 30 dark reapers is still a thing with 0-3. That alone makes it insufficient.
That, alone, makes that alone insufficient. Point adjustments and unit restrictions aren't mutually exclusive.
Exactly. Reduce the max unit size to 5, AND add the 0-3 limit and now you can only get 15 total Reapers in a list, and can only buff 5 at a time.
Maybe up them to 30ppm total after that. That WOULD fix Reapers.
The 0-3 datasheets per army would reduce many, many issues overnight. There will always be points readjustments needed, but the 0-3 WILL cut down over 90% of the most egregious offenders.
And remember, that this would only apply to Matched Play anyway. If people want to spam, they can play Narrative or Open play.
tripchimeras wrote: 40k is literally the only wargame I have ever been exposed to where the community this obstinately clings to the idea that restrictions are bad and points alone can fix everything... Redundancy is a powerful weapon, far more powerful then many seem to understand, and the power behind it goes way beyond things being simply improperly point costed. I don't know how many of you played fantasy but my username speaks to the power of redundancy, if any of you were familiar with Warhammer 8th edition you know of what I speak, and you know that triple chimeras rarely appeared on the tournament circuit despite GW never fixing their power, because of almost all of the restrictive comp systems in play making it crippling to take more then 2. Points alone do not really fix this, because what is well costed when taken alone can become crazy when taken in multiples of 4 or 5.
Someone above claimed that the same can be achieved by taking multiple units of similar types, but it is not the same unless their profiles and utilities are nearly identical. In a wargame the power of redundancy is very difficult to break without introducing restrictions like unit caps, force org charts, or something along the lines of swedish comp back from warhammer fantasy. Restrictions are 100% necessary for a balanced wargame, and the rumors about a hard 3 unit cap would be a good starting point, though as others have mentioned not good enough on its own.
OFC redundancy is powerful. Eventually an opponent runs out of effective weapons to deal with a redundant profile because they brought a TAC list. It can be a disadvantage if your opponent is prepared for it though - so it is not an issue of limitation - it is an issue of tactics.
There are always three groups fighting against comp, the "I want it all and I refuse to accept the consequences group" that is always extremely well represented in any 40k comp discussion, the "no matter what you suggest I will point out how it is only an incremental improvement and that is just not good enough for some reason, so instead lets just keep it as broken as humanly possible" group and the most infuriating "If you have a problem with the game's balance you need to adjust your tactics" camp. Look rarely does a list have no counters, so I get what you are saying from that perspective, but good tactics are just not enough to compensate for the monumental balance issues a GW game has by their base nature. They are large scale, with massive model ranges, a huge number of factions, are designed to be casual gamer friendly, and revolve exclusively around limited statistic models where combat exclusively utilizes a d6. These games by their very nature are at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to balance. The way to fix said balance is to create an ever evolving ruleset that seeks to incrementally fix the most glaring issues, and restrict the most egregious beneficiaries of redundancy. The way you do this can either be company led (what GW is half heatedly trying to do with the "living rulesset" in 8th) or through tournament comp systems. Without either, you have the tournament scene as it stands, something I think most everyone would like to see improved from a balance perspective. Utilizing better tactics cannot compensate for the inherent weaknesses of the 40k army design, I'm sorry they just can't. The only solution without fundamentally making the game unrecognizable, is more restrictive army creation. Now how that is achieved can come in multiple ways, that do not necessarily mean the banning of soup, or hard unit caps. 8th edition warhmammer fantasy had 3 different and fairly varied community comp systems that each went about trying to solve the problem in different ways and each achieved varying degrees of success. But "everything is fine, your tactics just suck" is not a solution.
Bharring wrote: What pointscost could possibly support using just a few of a unit sometimes if it gets better the more of them you take?
Lets do it this way, to remove some biases:
Fire Warriors gain:
Sphere Expansion: For every other friendly Fire Warrior unit on the board, gain +1S/T/A, and +1 shot when firing Rapid Fire
What point cost, approximately, would you point that at so it has it's uses, but isn't OP
I would never make that rule because it's bloody stupid and whoever came up with that should be fired.
Points and restrictions arn't the be all and end all of nerfing. Changing the actual bloody rules to not be brain-dead is always an option.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And everyone saying "If you just nerf X unit tournies will just spam Y unit instead" guess what? Even if a universal highlander is put in place, tournaments will STILL find the best units and use only those (or, in the case of troops, unit, since this change does nothing to effect them) which, due to this, will get nerfed in response, which will lead to only the next best units getting used, being repeated ad-infinitum until all units in the game are perfectly balanced and equally viable, which, as almost everyone has already pointed out, is simply not possible.
This change literally does nothing but make innocent, often FLUFFY/themed lists that arn't even that competitive (e.g. Bike armies, dread armies, Mek armies, Termie armies ect.) illegal because the all powerful, unstoppable net-list will always exist with the way that 40k is now.
Automatically Appended Next Post: At this point I just want the FAQ to come and put us all out of our misery. If all the rumours are true this FAQ is going to have more rules changes than Chapter Approved had.
And everyone saying "If you just nerf X unit tournies will just spam Y unit instead" guess what? Even if a universal highlander is put in place, tournaments will STILL find the best units and use only those (or, in the case of troops, unit, since this change does nothing to effect them) which, due to this, will get nerfed in response, which will lead to only the next best units getting used, being repeated ad-infinitum until all units in the game are perfectly balanced and equally viable, which, as almost everyone has already pointed out, is simply not possible.
If the replacement is as good as what it replaced then it likely would have shown up prior.
At this point I just want the FAQ to come and put us all out of our misery.
Which fallacy? I'm not sure that sentence even makes sense.
A fallacy is defined as a mistaken belief.
The fallacy of points is that points equal balance. They don't and never have. These discussions have been going on around the internet since AOL dialup chatroom days.
Therefore raising points on undercost units won't fix the balance in the game, it will simply make other units over/undercost and start the circle over again. The only way points equal balance iis if you are only using one scenario. Once you use multiple scenario, the point variables of a model change because a model's worth will vary from scenario to scenario. Sometimes minorly. Sometimes drastically.
I think from reading some of your previous posts I know where you stand on this. Correct me if I am wrong.
You believe that points don't equal balance because of the situational nature of things. That is a good point - but it doesn't mean we can't strive to have a more even playing field. We can use math to balance units profiles in optimum situations. That might mean some units don't perform to expectation or some units are just flat out better most of the time but that is going to come down to how you play the unit. It should never be like it is now in a balanced game where - I spam this unit = I win. Clearly something is off if that is going on.
And everyone saying "If you just nerf X unit tournies will just spam Y unit instead" guess what? Even if a universal highlander is put in place, tournaments will STILL find the best units and use only those (or, in the case of troops, unit, since this change does nothing to effect them) which, due to this, will get nerfed in response, which will lead to only the next best units getting used, being repeated ad-infinitum until all units in the game are perfectly balanced and equally viable, which, as almost everyone has already pointed out, is simply not possible.
If the replacement is as good as what it replaced then it likely would have shown up prior.
At this point I just want the FAQ to come and put us all out of our misery.
Agree!
At the competitive level - if a unit is 1% more likely to outperform the other they will chose the 1% better unit. Personally - I think eldar are still top teir even with a nerf to reapers and spears. They have a lot of good options. Particularly their flyers are amazing (which were heavily countered by reapers - but no longer)
Martel732 wrote: I can spam anything i want in starcraft. Way more balanced than 40k. It's the points values. Period.
Yeah, but that's a disingenuous analogy. In starcraft, if my opponent spams units (like say mutalisks), then I can build units that counter them (like vikings). 40k doesn't have a reactive, and fluid composition that can be changed during the game to tailor your list more for what you are facing. So you get situations where an opponent spams mutalisks, and you are stuck with hellions and can't tech change. GG.
I don't think that's quite fair to discount his analogy. In a competitive setting your list may be I'll equipped to counter that skew, but the next guy will demolish mutalisks leading to a tendency of balanced lists taking the overall victory. Skew is a healthy part of competitive strategy, helping to prevent invincible lists from emerging for very long. That being said, unwinnable match ups like imperial character shenanigans should be scarce, but making those lists illegal would give the lists they counter an unfair advantage in terms of match up percentage.
I don't think that's quite fair to discount his analogy. In a competitive setting your list may be I'll equipped to counter that skew, but the next guy will demolish mutalisks leading to a tendency of balanced lists taking the overall victory. Skew is a healthy part of competitive strategy, helping to prevent invincible lists from emerging for very long. That being said, unwinnable match ups like imperial character shenanigans should be scarce, but making those lists illegal would give the lists they counter an unfair advantage in terms of match up percentage.
No, that player won't ditch mutalisks when they don't work one game. Higher level games will still see them as their opener and a good opponent is fast enough to scout and react to it. It's all about inflicting economic damage and slowing them down while you build up.
If you were to consider the entire tournament of 40k as the scope of one match of a RTS, this notion of adaptability is roughly equivalent to designing a list that has the ability to compete with all manner of specific strategies one expects to encounter. Just the possibility of an all character, all flyer, all tank list prevents that game from becoming a pure excercise in probability in which the overtuned codex always wins. We see this in practice with these "spoiler" lists being allowed in a tournament preventing things like an obviously overtuned guard codex taking victory in every tournament. Right now, a lot of things are "competitive " but all are capable of losing games to relatively common armies, which are considered mid tier at best. Proposed changes such as forcing huge numbers of troops punish these skew/spoiler lists and would inevitably reduce diversity in the top tier
You believe that points don't equal balance because of the situational nature of things. That is a good point - but it doesn't mean we can't strive to have a more even playing field. We can use math to balance units profiles in optimum situations. That might mean some units don't perform to expectation or some units are just flat out better most of the time but that is going to come down to how you play the unit. It should never be like it is now in a balanced game where - I spam this unit = I win. Clearly something is off if that is going on.
Something has been off with 40k since 40k was a thing though. To get closer to balance, it will take much more than simple point switches. Those dont' ever balance the game.
They just expose other imbalances or make other things imbalanced.
To get to a more balanced 40k you definitely need some math involved in a set formula, but you also need an array of scenarios that are all different so that you can't just spam one thing that always does well... and making the game more reactive by setting the IGOUGO system on fire is a must.
Daedalus81 wrote: Does anyone have good clear rules for sideboards in 40k?
Honestly, I think sideboards are easy but people overreact. Just say "Before every game you can swap out units up to 25% (or whatever) of the game's maximum points allotment. This cannot take the list above the game's maximum points allotment."
So if you have a 2k game, you can swap out 500 points of units. It doesn't matter with what or how or why - you could trade 500 points for 300, or 300 points for 500, if you only had 1800 points in the original list (still assuming a 2k max).
Daedalus81 wrote: Does anyone have good clear rules for sideboards in 40k?
Honestly, I think sideboards are easy but people overreact. Just say "Before every game you can swap out units up to 25% (or whatever) of the game's maximum points allotment. This cannot take the list above the game's maximum points allotment."
So if you have a 2k game, you can swap out 500 points of units. It doesn't matter with what or how or why - you could trade 500 points for 300, or 300 points for 500, if you only had 1800 points in the original list (still assuming a 2k max).
But can't you abuse detachments? Take all cheap stuff, get the CP, and switch out for harder units.
I think in 8th for side boards you would need to do something like
3 detachments max
one of these can be a side board detachment, this detachment can be no more than x points (could be 500, could be 200, you pick). Create 2 detachments of equal points
After viewing your opponents list and sideboard you may choose which sideboard detachment to include in your army.
The issue with a straight points swap is that your opponent needs to ensure that your list is still legal after the swap, it is just really open to mistakes, not to mention added time to the match for list building.
Daedalus81 wrote: Does anyone have good clear rules for sideboards in 40k?
Honestly, I think sideboards are easy but people overreact. Just say "Before every game you can swap out units up to 25% (or whatever) of the game's maximum points allotment. This cannot take the list above the game's maximum points allotment."
So if you have a 2k game, you can swap out 500 points of units. It doesn't matter with what or how or why - you could trade 500 points for 300, or 300 points for 500, if you only had 1800 points in the original list (still assuming a 2k max).
But can't you abuse detachments? Take all cheap stuff, get the CP, and switch out for harder units.
Presumably, your army would still have to be legal. So you wouldn't be able to take out "part" of a brigade and put in a Vanguard, or something.
To abuse the detachment system, you'd essentially have to entirely build your army around having 500 point high-CP detachments swapping for 500-point low CP detachments, reducing the 1500 rest of your points to only 2 detachments, etc...
I don't know. I think trying to feth with the detachment system just makes it more complicated - just say your army must still be legal afterwards and be done with it.
Plus, you could just say "CPs are determined after you have decided whether or not you are incorporating a sideboard for this game"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: The issue with a straight points swap is that your opponent needs to ensure that your list is still legal after the swap, it is just really open to mistakes, not to mention added time to the match for list building.
People make mistakes without sideboards. The boat has sailed on whether or not we do anything about listbuilding mistakes.
Breng77 wrote: I think in 8th for side boards you would need to do something like
3 detachments max
one of these can be a side board detachment, this detachment can be no more than x points (could be 500, could be 200, you pick). Create 2 detachments of equal points
After viewing your opponents list and sideboard you may choose which sideboard detachment to include in your army.
The issue with a straight points swap is that your opponent needs to ensure that your list is still legal after the swap, it is just really open to mistakes, not to mention added time to the match for list building.
Yeah, I would do it like that. an X point detachment that can be switched for a seperate detachment.
Or the Warmachine way where you have 2 (or more) entirely separate lists and pick one each round.
Breng77 wrote: I think in 8th for side boards you would need to do something like
3 detachments max
one of these can be a side board detachment, this detachment can be no more than x points (could be 500, could be 200, you pick). Create 2 detachments of equal points
After viewing your opponents list and sideboard you may choose which sideboard detachment to include in your army.
The issue with a straight points swap is that your opponent needs to ensure that your list is still legal after the swap, it is just really open to mistakes, not to mention added time to the match for list building.
Closer, but I think it should be 500 or so points max otherwise you'd see people switch out a whole brigade.
Breng77 wrote: The issue with a straight points swap is that your opponent needs to ensure that your list is still legal after the swap, it is just really open to mistakes, not to mention added time to the match for list building.
People make mistakes without sideboards. The boat has sailed on whether or not we do anything about listbuilding mistakes.
"feth it, lets give people more chances of making mistakes" is not the answer to the current list mistakes being made.
Ordana wrote: "feth it, lets give people more chances of making mistakes" is not the answer to the current list mistakes being made.
I suppose the better answer is to ignore it, as I've been hearing in those threads.
It's been made clear to me that listbuilding mistakes aren't considered a problem at the highest levels, at least until recently when internet pressure on TOs grew.
I happen to like the 2 list idea. It's not a whole lot harder to validate 2 lists as opposed to 1. As a side benefit if 1 of the lists isn't valid the player can still participate with the other list.
Which fallacy? I'm not sure that sentence even makes sense.
A fallacy is defined as a mistaken belief.
No, a fallacy is an error made in logical argumentation. No True Scotsman, Moving the Goalposts, internal logical contradictions, violations of the laws of logic, these are fallacies. What you are referring to is not a fallacy, it's an argument for a position you hold that someone else's position is not in conformation with reality.
Which fallacy? I'm not sure that sentence even makes sense.
A fallacy is defined as a mistaken belief.
No, a fallacy is an error made in logical argumentation. No True Scotsman, Moving the Goalposts, internal logical contradictions, violations of the laws of logic, these are fallacies. What you are referring to is not a fallacy, it's an argument for a position you hold that someone else's position is not in conformation with reality.
Please don't use terms you don't understand.
This is actually a really rude post.
First of all, a fallacy is absolutely a mistaken belief. That's literally word-for-word the first definition in the Oxford English Dictionary.
The definition you propose is a "logical fallacy" - a subtype of fallacy used when discussion the structure and composition of logical arguments.
Or the Warmachine way where you have 2 (or more) entirely separate lists and pick one each round.
But how does that work systematically?
Does each player see their opponents lists and then choose secretly? What are the odds they pick the list you didn't want them to pick?
You can see all of your opponents lists before the game. Both secretly pick one of their lists to play. Yes it would become a mind game if both sides have a counter to what the other side can bring.
Or the Warmachine way where you have 2 (or more) entirely separate lists and pick one each round.
But how does that work systematically?
Does each player see their opponents lists and then choose secretly? What are the odds they pick the list you didn't want them to pick?
WM/H's 2 list format has you see your opponent's two lists and choose a list of your own blind. 3 list format is also the same deal. There's also Specialists that can be subbed in for other units/jacks/beasts if you are following a specific condition (using the warcasters/warlocks in the current ADR).
This system has a problem of List Chicken. 40k isn't quite as prone to that because 40k isn't as extremely punishing toward bad match-ups, but it's still a problem when one player takes two entirely different list archetypes and forces the opponent to gamble on which threat vector they are going to have to cover. For example, say your opponent has a list with infantry spam and the other has armor spam. A TAC list is going to suffer into either of those match-ups, but if you designed your two lists to skew as well, then whatever skew you choose might be at a complete disadvantage against one list and be at complete advantage versus another list. It's a big clusterfeth, especially if your faction depends heavily on one type of strategy to succeed (Tau, for example) because an opponent may have an anti-melee and anti-shooting tailored list and have a very easy pick vs you.
Or the Warmachine way where you have 2 (or more) entirely separate lists and pick one each round.
But how does that work systematically?
Does each player see their opponents lists and then choose secretly? What are the odds they pick the list you didn't want them to pick?
WM/H's 2 list format has you see your opponent's two lists and choose a list of your own blind. 3 list format is also the same deal. There's also Specialists that can be subbed in for other units/jacks/beasts if you are following a specific condition (using the warcasters/warlocks in the current ADR).
This system has a problem of List Chicken. 40k isn't quite as prone to that because 40k isn't as extremely punishing toward bad match-ups, but it's still a problem when one player takes two entirely different list archetypes and forces the opponent to gamble on which threat vector they are going to have to cover. For example, say your opponent has a list with infantry spam and the other has armor spam. A TAC list is going to suffer into either of those match-ups, but if you designed your two lists to skew as well, then whatever skew you choose might be at a complete disadvantage against one list and be at complete advantage versus another list. It's a big clusterfeth, especially if your faction depends heavily on one type of strategy to succeed (Tau, for example) because an opponent may have an anti-melee and anti-shooting tailored list and have a very easy pick vs you.
It is no worse then taking an AT list to a 1 list tournament and praying you don't meet Horde or visa versa. Or playing a TAC list and running into extremes.
A multiple list format is, imo, at worst just as bad as a 1 list format.
First of all, a fallacy is absolutely a mistaken belief. That's literally word-for-word the first definition in the Oxford English Dictionary.
The definition you propose is a "logical fallacy" - a subtype of fallacy used when discussion the structure and composition of logical arguments.
A mistaken belief is a misconception. From what I have learned in philosophy, the term fallacy is always used to describe errors in logic that deconstruct the argument, and from what I have read and in common discourse I have never heard the term fallacy used specifically because the word misconception exists to describe that condition with precision. These two states of error are very distinct because one is a structural error and another is simply an error in fact recollection.
Or the Warmachine way where you have 2 (or more) entirely separate lists and pick one each round.
But how does that work systematically?
Does each player see their opponents lists and then choose secretly? What are the odds they pick the list you didn't want them to pick?
WM/H's 2 list format has you see your opponent's two lists and choose a list of your own blind. 3 list format is also the same deal. There's also Specialists that can be subbed in for other units/jacks/beasts if you are following a specific condition (using the warcasters/warlocks in the current ADR).
This system has a problem of List Chicken. 40k isn't quite as prone to that because 40k isn't as extremely punishing toward bad match-ups, but it's still a problem when one player takes two entirely different list archetypes and forces the opponent to gamble on which threat vector they are going to have to cover. For example, say your opponent has a list with infantry spam and the other has armor spam. A TAC list is going to suffer into either of those match-ups, but if you designed your two lists to skew as well, then whatever skew you choose might be at a complete disadvantage against one list and be at complete advantage versus another list. It's a big clusterfeth, especially if your faction depends heavily on one type of strategy to succeed (Tau, for example) because an opponent may have an anti-melee and anti-shooting tailored list and have a very easy pick vs you.
It is no worse then taking an AT list to a 1 list tournament and praying you don't meet Horde or visa versa. Or playing a TAC list and running into extremes.
A multiple list format is, imo, at worst just as bad as a 1 list format.
I concede that point, it is certainly a problem either way. The advantage of a 1 list format is that players are truly gambling all in when they take a specific skew. 2 list formats spread out the risk across each opponent, but it's still a troublesome phenomenon.
If you realy want to make a two list system the rewards tac lists best way I would see to do it would be
Players have a master 2k list
From that 2k list they must write 2, 1.5k lists
You get to see your opponents 2k list and then pick one of your 1.5k lists.
Which fallacy? I'm not sure that sentence even makes sense.
A fallacy is defined as a mistaken belief.
No, a fallacy is an error made in logical argumentation. No True Scotsman, Moving the Goalposts, internal logical contradictions, violations of the laws of logic, these are fallacies. What you are referring to is not a fallacy, it's an argument for a position you hold that someone else's position is not in conformation with reality.
Please don't use terms you don't understand.
Well mister friend, looks like you need to take a trip to the english dictionary. I've been using the term for a very long time, in all kinds of contexts from twelve years of college paper writing all the way to technical white papers thanks much.
noun, plural fallacies.
1.
a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy.
2.
a misleading or unsound argument.
3.
deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness.
4.
Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.
5.
Obsolete. deception.
Of if you prefer Webster:
a : a false or mistaken idea popular fallacies prone to perpetrate the fallacy of equating threat with capability —C. S. Gray
b : erroneous character : erroneousness The fallacy of their ideas about medicine soon became apparent.
2 a : deceptive appearance : deception
b obsolete : guile, trickery
3 : an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference
If you want to combat the word "fallacy" and what it means, go take that up with the publishers of the dictionary.
A logical fallacy as you are describing from philosophy classes is a type of fallacy also defined in the dictionary under fallacy.
I'm using the word fallacy to mean #1. Thats the only position I have in this whole ridiculous side thread spawned by a very corrosive and inflammatory comment about me using a word incorrectly and how I shouldn't use a word that I don't "understand".
So no in that context he's most definitely not right.
He's discussing logical fallacies, which are a type of fallacy that yes indeed are underneath the definition of "fallacy". I never claimed that logical fallacies aren't a "fallacy", nor am I arguing that they are not.
But we have those rules, in effect. Most HQs buff guys around them - the guys they buff are worth more wtih them than without.
Tac Marines can be worthwhile with Bobby G, it seems, but aren't without him (or so the current thought goes)?
Reapers with Ynnari are clearly worht more than 30ppm, but without Ynnari are they still worth as much?
You can say you wouldn't let those rules into the game, but aren't they already here?
That shows an issue with the broken unit, which is Roboute. Why should the Tactical Marines be priced according to him, rather than fixing the pricing of Roboute?
Bobby G needs a re write as GW missed the mark so badly with his design. He shouldn't be a massive points sink that is only cost effective buffing an entire field of razorbacks or fireraptors.
Matched play has a rule of steategic disipline.
Strategic Genius could have so obviously allowed you to reuse one strategum per phase. He has a cool special rule and doesn't need a points costed thats scaled to balance a skew list.
There is a rumour GW will be limiting everything but troop choice to a max of 3 for everyone. Which I don't believe because it's bafflingly stupid and would make 40% of peoples armies illegal.
The values of auras can still be quantified so long as they are quantified compared to other auras.
Something like:
Aura effectiveness + aura size x number of units likely to be effected at a time or in an average game.
Then just make sure that all auras follow a similar sort of equation.
Obviously you then have to build your army intelligently, taking into account how many units you are expected to be buffing for that unit to get it's points back.
If Bobby G isn't balanced point-wise right now (probably something that is debatable), there is presumably a points value where he would be.
However, balance is about a lot more than just points values. Sometimes a unit is just poorly designed. I think that Bobby G is an example of this, because his buffs are so good that he sort of forces you to clump your army up around him, and he costs so much that if you don't spend your remaining points on the most efficient fire-base you can, you lack the durability to maintain a drawn out game. It seems like GW probably overlooked the fact that people would just cluster everything around him, and that's why they had to up his points.
A captain's aura is much more reasonable, as although you do want to get re-rolls of 1 to hit, they aren't so amazing you can't move out of it if you have to, and captains are cheap enough that you could use more than one and spread out the buffs. They also fill a decent roll of being a counter charge unit, and fill up a required HQ slot.
To make Roboute balanced, perhaps he should only give rerolls to hit and wounds of 1. Perhaps his points would need to drop some to make up for this, but then he would then fill the role of both a captain and a Lt without completely eclipsing the need for them, and have more of the focus be on how much of a monster he is in close combat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lolman1c wrote: There is a rumour GW will be limiting everything but troop choice to a max of 3 for everyone. Which I don't believe because it's bafflingly stupid and would make 40% of peoples armies illegal.
+
It might make a current list or two illegal, but that's about it.
Generally I would argue it's not "fun" for me or my opponent if I have 6 of the same unit, with a few possible exceptions (bike or termy armies, perhaps? But even those, fluffy as they are, can make for somewhat boring point and click games).And i do think it is important that both I and my opponent have fuin while trying to win as competitively as possible.
Most of the time I find myself forced to take 3+ of a thing due to it being so good (which i like, since it's fun when units are good) that everything else is bad (which is annoying).
I obviously think points need to play a role in the balance process as well, but I think even if the points levels were perfect, there would still be one unit that would be the best a specific job and role, and the value of redundancy isn't ever going to just go away. If i could only take 3 of the best thing and then had to consider something else from the codex tool kit, that at least would be some variety.
No, you miss understood me. It would mean you can only have 3 max of a type of unit not a model. So you can only have a max 3 elites, heavy support, ect... Regardless of the models or units. So if I brought terminators, an apothecary znd a dreadnought I could no longer legally bring any more elites no matter what type of detachment I have or how many detachments I have. This is just a rumour though.
So for me who plays mech Orks. I could only bring killa kans, deff dread and a Morkanaut. I wouldn't be allowed to take any more heavy support which would render most my models useless.
lolman1c wrote: No, you miss understood me. It would mean you can only have 3 max of a type of unit not a model. So you can only have a max 3 elites, heavy support, ect... Regardless of the models or units. So if I brought terminators, an apothecary znd a dreadnought I could no longer legally bring any more elites no matter what type of detachment I have or how many detachments I have. This is just a rumour though.
So for me who plays mech Orks. I could only bring killa kans, deff dread and a Morkanaut. I wouldn't be allowed to take any more heavy support which would render most my models useless.
That's ridiculous. It would mean that...no, I'm not even going to bother to explain it. It's just ridiculous.
lolman1c wrote: No, you miss understood me. It would mean you can only have 3 max of a type of unit not a model. So you can only have a max 3 elites, heavy support, ect... Regardless of the models or units. So if I brought terminators, an apothecary znd a dreadnought I could no longer legally bring any more elites no matter what type of detachment I have or how many detachments I have. This is just a rumour though.
So for me who plays mech Orks. I could only bring killa kans, deff dread and a Morkanaut. I wouldn't be allowed to take any more heavy support which would render most my models useless.
It seems like you might be a bit late to the party, unless that is a brand new rumor, as the previous one was 1-3 per unit from like 2 days ago.
That being said, that is how it was in 5th and that seemed fine to me. I doubt they would do it now, though, as it would be quite a shock to the current state of the hobby.
A mistaken belief is a misconception. From what I have learned in philosophy, the term fallacy is always used to describe errors in logic that deconstruct the argument, and from what I have read and in common discourse I have never heard the term fallacy used specifically because the word misconception exists to describe that condition with precision. These two states of error are very distinct because one is a structural error and another is simply an error in fact recollection.
You’re making what could be said to be a classical mistake of the higher-educated: that how you have been taught something is defined is the only way it can be defined, and that you speak with authority due to your higher education.
I’ll use an example from my own field (engineering). Take two bars, one made of steel and another of some ceramic. You hit both bars with a hammer. The steel bar is slightly dented/bent, but not by much. The ceramic one is unblemished. You hit them again, this time 0.1% harder than you did the first time. The steel bar is very slightly more dented/bent. The ceramic one has shattered completely.
From the way I have been educated, I would tell you that the ceramic bar is stronger. Most people would look at the slightly bent steel bar and the scattered shards of the ceramic one and tell me I’m a moron. I would then tell them that no, the steel bar yielded first, so it is by definition less strong. The steel might be tougher than the ceramic, but by definition the ceramic bar is the stronger of the two. At which point they would then pick up the steel bar and bash me over the head with it.
Your strict definition makes you correct inside the defined box of your field, but it doesn’t mean the layman’s more practical use of the term isn’t more correct when applied outside of your little box.
What if they made it so that, if a unit was taken more than x amount of times, the next ones go up in point cost? If you imagine spamming a unit as more powerful than only having a few, would a higher cost for spamming that unit reapply balance? Like saying they're worth more points taken in large numbers.
Tiberius501 your idea is similar to the ‘sliding scale’ mentioned on a previous page. It’s a good idea, but I see some notable flaws.
The first is that every point value would have to become a table of values. Not an issue for me, I read tables for work, but it’s not everybody’s cup of tea. To do that you’d have to do a wholesale rework of all points in one go. That such a massive undertaking you might as well make a new edition at the same time. A good way of handling that might be to leave points of Codexes and just leave Power Level in there, then release a quarterly ‘points booklet’ and patch for the list building app, but that’s another discussion.
The bigger issue is scalability. Taking 7 Flyrants in 2000pts is abusive. Taking 7 Flyrants in a 15000pt Apocalypse list is not. (Please don’t tell me to use Power Level for Apocalypse - like many people I prefer points regardless of game size.) So in a big game I’m paying a ‘Spam Tax’ simply because multiples of the same unit make sense in a game that big.
Why is that a problem? Surely every unit in every army will have the same tax, so you all scale up together and everybody’s happy. The issue then is that different Codexes have different numbers of units. Above say 5000pts an AdMech player is going to be getting into their 3rd and 4th multiple of each unit and paying the ‘Spam Tax’ on all of them, whereas a Marines player can probably do it without duplicating a single unit and hence isn’t paying the Spam Tax - so the get a big advantage.
I’m not saying it’s an unworkable solution, but there are issues that need addressing.
An alternative I like is the limit to 3 of each non-Troop unit as the rumour suggests, but instead of a flat 3 scale it with game size. So at 1000pts you can have 2 of each, 2000pts you can have 3 of each, 3000pts you can have 4 of each etc.
lolman1c wrote: There is a rumour GW will be limiting everything but troop choice to a max of 3 for everyone. Which I don't believe because it's bafflingly stupid and would make 40% of peoples armies illegal.
Like the old standard FOC chart was in 3rd - 6th (?) editions? I'm not opposed to this.
lolman1c wrote: There is a rumour GW will be limiting everything but troop choice to a max of 3 for everyone. Which I don't believe because it's bafflingly stupid and would make 40% of peoples armies illegal.
Like the old standard FOC chart was in 3rd - 6th (?) editions? I'm not opposed to this.
I am. It was terrible in the old editions and shoving it into an edition that wasn't designed to work that way will make about half the armies in the game immediately unplayable.
You don't like Eldar, Nids, Guard, and Chaos dominating the top spots at tournaments? Whoooo boy, wait 'till that change goes through! It is the ULTIMATE 'rich get richer' scenario. You think 6 hive tyrants is bad when you have 6 of your best units to counter it? Wait until he has 3 Hive tyrants and 3 of a unit that's like...5-10% worse than a hive tyrant and now you've got to deal with 3 of your best unit(which already wasn't as good as a hive tyrant) and 3 units 20% worse than that!
If you play codex marines, dark angels, sisters of battle, grey knights, orkz, deathguard, Thousand sons, custodes, space wolves, or deathwatch; get ready to lose EVEN HARDER except now you're forced to soup your list just to have a complete army.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Hmm. What if turn 1 Deepstrikes and the like all required a CP?
It wouldn't shut down Alpha Strikes, but would make them a bit more costly to pull.
Or simply limit them to certain armies, like blood angels and grey knights that have always had deepstrike-heavy armies in their fluff. However, those changes do nothing for shooting-based alpha strikes, which are worse and more prevalent.
Martel732 wrote: I can spam anything i want in starcraft. Way more balanced than 40k. It's the points values. Period.
Starcraft is a game with hard counters. It handles imbalance a lot better than a game of soft counters like Warhammer.
To elaborate, its somewhat inconsequential if Roaches or other things that can't shoot up are 10% undercosted if I've built an army of Liberators or Battle Cruisers to fight them.
The same applies to swarms of infantry vs. AOE units as an example of a fight where both sides might damage the other.
Comparitively, if Dark Reapers are off by 10-15%, its a lot harder to come up with a counter composition that makes up for the gap in efficiency.
This is why Starcraft is built upon multi-unit composition like Marine Tank, Roach Bane Muta and so on.
Also because there's two resources.
Tiberius501 wrote: What if they made it so that, if a unit was taken more than x amount of times, the next ones go up in point cost? If you imagine spamming a unit as more powerful than only having a few, would a higher cost for spamming that unit reapply balance? Like saying they're worth more points taken in large numbers.
(Sorry if someone has already mentioned this)
Whilst not a bad idea, this doesn't accomplish anything too different from the 0-3 limit aside from punishing the lower end of spam more and not having a hard cap against the upper end.
With, say, a 10 point increase per unit taken after the first, units that are close to being balanced quickly become untenable after the second, whilst units that are severely undercosted can still grab four or five before they start paying the proper amount of points for things.
kombatwombat wrote: An alternative I like is the limit to 3 of each non-Troop unit as the rumour suggests, but instead of a flat 3 scale it with game size. So at 1000pts you can have 2 of each, 2000pts you can have 3 of each, 3000pts you can have 4 of each etc.
The idea of the hard limit scaling with game size is a good one.
But we have those rules, in effect. Most HQs buff guys around them - the guys they buff are worth more wtih them than without.
Tac Marines can be worthwhile with Bobby G, it seems, but aren't without him (or so the current thought goes)?
Reapers with Ynnari are clearly worht more than 30ppm, but without Ynnari are they still worth as much?
You can say you wouldn't let those rules into the game, but aren't they already here?
I agree that auras are problematic from a balance prospective. I for one would be happy to see auras go and turn into target activated abilities that could only affect X numbers of units.
Like a LT can buff 1 units
A captain 2
A grand master 3
and RG maybe 4
Something like that would be far easier to balance. You could alter the range of the abilities too - 6" could become 9" or something to give you more freedom to maneuver and make the game more fun. I wish all "aura abiltiies" worked like this.
That is much better solution than the current auras. Kinda works like the old warlock psychic buffs when they automatically passed.
Bharring wrote: What pointscost could possibly support using just a few of a unit sometimes if it gets better the more of them you take?
Lets do it this way, to remove some biases:
Fire Warriors gain:
Sphere Expansion: For every other friendly Fire Warrior unit on the board, gain +1S/T/A, and +1 shot when firing Rapid Fire
What point cost, approximately, would you point that at so it has it's uses, but isn't OP
I wouldn't allow that rule in a game for the exact reason you posted it.
Welcome to Strength From Death Martel, except that instead of getting better it gets worse with each additional unit you bring.
Its a really stupid ing rule and it will continue to screw with the balance of the 2 and a half other Eldar codices as long as it exists in its current state
Why on earth are people comparing 40k to starcraft.
The two cannot be compared between balance because your effectively building your armylist and changing it on the fly in SC. In 40k your list is static and designed before you even know what race your fighting.
The two call for completely different approaches to balance because of this.
Try this against a friend. make him start random. Don't scout. Just build a 100 supply army without even knowing what race the randomed. He does the same and then meet in the middle. It will be a horribly unbalanced crapshoot.
Its so far apart its not even apples and oranges anymore.
Ordana wrote: Why on earth are people comparing 40k to starcraft.
The two cannot be compared between balance because your effectively building your armylist and changing it on the fly in SC. In 40k your list is static and designed before you even know what race your fighting.
The two call for completely different approaches to balance because of this.
Try this against a friend. make him start random. Don't scout. Just build a 100 supply army without even knowing what race the randomed. He does the same and then meet in the middle. It will be a horribly unbalanced crapshoot.
Its so far apart its not even apples and oranges anymore.
The red part is where you are wrong. In general, trying to balance a game based stuff dealing damage to other stuff is roughly the same, whether you are playing Star Craft, World of Warcraft, Overwatch, League of Legends, Magic the Gathering, CounterStrike or Warhammer 40k.
Sure, the game itself is different and the people trying to balance the game need to understand their game very well. The process of identifying problems in your game, iterating over solutions to fix those problems and collecting data on your changes is about the same, no matter what kind of game you are playing. For many problems there are common solutions that can be found in almost every kind of genre.
The main difference between WH40k and StarCraft is how problems with specific problems are solved.
It's very much the same as working on two different pieces of software - even if the programming language and the purpose of the software vastly differs (for example Windows 10 and StarCraft II), there are some basic processes and principles that are true for both of them. And not just some basic stuff, some are complex enough to fill multiple books.
In the end, both 40k and StarCraft are just rule sets. We are very much comparing grapefruit to oranges here.
Ordana wrote: Why on earth are people comparing 40k to starcraft.
The two cannot be compared between balance because your effectively building your armylist and changing it on the fly in SC. In 40k your list is static and designed before you even know what race your fighting.
The two call for completely different approaches to balance because of this.
Try this against a friend. make him start random. Don't scout. Just build a 100 supply army without even knowing what race the randomed. He does the same and then meet in the middle. It will be a horribly unbalanced crapshoot.
Its so far apart its not even apples and oranges anymore.
The red part is where you are wrong. In general, trying to balance a game based stuff dealing damage to other stuff is roughly the same, whether you are playing Star Craft, World of Warcraft, Overwatch, League of Legends, Magic the Gathering, CounterStrike or Warhammer 40k.
Sure, the game itself is different and the people trying to balance the game need to understand their game very well. The process of identifying problems in your game, iterating over solutions to fix those problems and collecting data on your changes is about the same, no matter what kind of game you are playing. For many problems there are common solutions that can be found in almost every kind of genre.
The main difference between WH40k and StarCraft is how problems with specific problems are solved.
It's very much the same as working on two different pieces of software - even if the programming language and the purpose of the software vastly differs (for example Windows 10 and StarCraft II), there are some basic processes and principles that are true for both of them. And not just some basic stuff, some are complex enough to fill multiple books.
In the end, both 40k and StarCraft are just rule sets. We are very much comparing grapefruit to oranges here.
(note the following is based on old Sc2 knowledge and may no longer be entirely correct at this time, the point made should still be valid tho).
Hard counters are probably the easiest way to highlight the difference.
Take Zerg vs Terran. Mutalist vs Thor. The Thor pretty hard counters the Mutalisk. If I run my army of Mutalisks into an Army of Thor's I lose, the end. That's ok in SC because I can still buy time and build some other unit that work better against Thor's.
In 40k I would just strait up lose. Sure I can try and play objectives but thats more delaying the inevitable then actually winning, when dealing with a hard counter. There is no option for me to 'build' a more suitable army.
In SC it might be balanced. In 40k it won't be. If my Mutalisks are priced correctly when facing a horde of Thor's they are going to be hilariously OP when faced with a Siege Tank push. Balancing for both is a complete nightmare, if even possible.
So the basic triangle of Rock-Paper-Scissors becomes night unworkable when faced with pre-determined lists that allow spam. You can balance the game around taking a bit of all 3 but then my army of pure Rock (or any other) will likely dominate because I overwhelm your paper, crush your scissors and do well enough against your own bit of rock.
Instead of responding to Mutalisks being dominated by Thor's with "So build some Roaches" 40k has to find a point where Mutalisks and Thor's are priced to be more or less balanced against eachother. While also having Thor's be balanced against Mass Roach, and Zergling, and Ultralists and..ect..
Its a much more complex situation because "its ok, X is supposed to counter, use something else' is not good enough.
This is where a proper use of unit restrictions can help your balance. By selective limiting units you can try to force armies having some rocks, some scissors and some paper. Which is much easier to balance.
Ordana wrote: Why on earth are people comparing 40k to starcraft.
The two cannot be compared between balance because your effectively building your armylist and changing it on the fly in SC. In 40k your list is static and designed before you even know what race your fighting.
The two call for completely different approaches to balance because of this.
Try this against a friend. make him start random. Don't scout. Just build a 100 supply army without even knowing what race the randomed. He does the same and then meet in the middle. It will be a horribly unbalanced crapshoot.
Its so far apart its not even apples and oranges anymore.
Because someone brought Starcraft up as an example of spam being okay when the costs of the units themselves are balanced.
The overarching point of their argument was that additional restrictions, such as the rumoured 0-3 cap on non troops, are superfluous waffle and Points alone are sufficient.
I agree that Starcraft isn't the greatest example.
Something like a Total War game would be much better
To me there are usually 3 different situations that cause there to be a balance problem:
1. A unit is well designed but it's points cost is incorrect
2. A unit is poorly designed and is so good ability wise that it can do everything for your army (hive tyrants can deepstrike, cast magic, shoot, and fight great while being very durable)
3. A side effect of the rules makes a unit too good in some way (Tau commanders are great at shooting but also invincible from shooting if they are behind other units, unlike almost any other character in the game)
Sometimes points definitely seen like the answer, but other times I think units need a rules change to get them back in line with their specific role, or have their ability to abuse the rules limited in some way.
If a sideboard /2 list army were to become more of a normal, I think it’d really add in that extra level of mind game and strategy that currently can be a bit… lacking.
However, I would up the limit from 500 to 600/650 points, reason being is the cheapest Custodes battalion is 590 points. 600-650 allows everyone to have the option of a swap no matter what army they play.
I’d also imply further restrictions, something along the line of –
When swapping, you swap the entire detachment for your “reserve” detachment.
CP amount is calculated after any detachment swaps are made, not before.
You can only swap a detachment for your “reserve” detachment if they both share the same sub-sub-faction keyword (I.E <regiment>/<chapter>/<sept>. Things that don’t affect detachments (I.E Ogryn/Scions in a Cadian detachment) don’t prevent swaps.
After any swaps, your list must still be battle-forged, legal and not above the points limit.
In regards to outlying units IF a max of 3 is brought in (i.e 30 Dark Reaper issue), then we can quickly and easily identify said units and work to address them. As others have said, currently, all we can target are the “flavour of the month” units, rather than a wider range of units.
As for Dark Reapers, I think capping the unit at 6 works. Pretty much every unit has a max size of double its basic starting size. For some reason, Reapers decided to ignore this. I’d just bring them back into line.
Auras are a tricky think to balance, I agree. An aura affecting 2 units (character and 1 other unit) is never going to be as valuable as when it affects 5 or 6 units, but where do you draw the line? Restricting the buff to x number of units isn’t the right way to go imo, so the only other option is points. As it stands, an army wide, no restriction, re-roll 1’s to hit for everything is costed at 24 points (3x marker drones). If we use this as a starting point, we can work towards an aura cost (which would be substantially lower). This could then be worked into the aura givers points cost – though, as the points cost is so minimal, I think it already is in most cases. The issue instead comes from BobbyG’s aura alone, allowing all hits and wounds to be re-rolled. This is an easy fix, as we all pretty much agree that he needs a point increase.
Alternatively, we can go down the “Guard Order” style route. This is an interesting idea, however, I would make the Lt and Captain both affect 2 (plus themselves) and add in Chapter Masters at 3. I’m also tempted to say that <characters> within the aura range don’t count towards the “affected unit limit”.
A lot of balance problems IMHO 90% or so can be fixed either permenantly or temporarily via points costs.
It's the the other 10% and the this-just-isn'f-fun-problems that need other solutions.
Starcraft is a bad comparison because it's primarily about the macro economy rather than the actual fighting. Als o a lost due to bad build in sc wastes maybe 20 minutes of your time. However a list botched game of 40k can be half or even your entire day wasted. (travel/packing/etc).
Instead of responding to Mutalisks being dominated by Thor's with "So build some Roaches" 40k has to find a point where Mutalisks and Thor's are priced to be more or less balanced against eachother. While also having Thor's be balanced against Mass Roach, and Zergling, and Ultralists and..ect..
Its a much more complex situation because "its ok, X is supposed to counter, use something else' is not good enough.
This is a complete misunderstanding of what people mean by "balance" in the context of a game like this. They don't mean that you should be able to take an army of Mutalisks and put up a good fight against an army of Thors. The whole point of Thors is still that they counter Mutalisks. It's still a balanced game even if some lists have a big advantage over other lists. What people want is a meta populated with diverse and interesting lists, where most units in the game show up at least occasionally. Thor-Mutalisk interactions are a perfectly acceptable and even desirable part of this -- if you bring some units that are weak to Mutalisks, you can keep your list competitive against lists with lots of Mutalisks by also bringing some Thors. It's your need to do well in the meta that keeps you honest -- you could take an army of Thors, and this would crush the occasional army of Mutalisks, but you would lose most of your games against more common TAC armies.
So it’s like three weeks since AdeptiCon and no faq.... at least we know the two week faq after each codex come out will be rushed hurried incomplete and totally insufficient
Instead of responding to Mutalisks being dominated by Thor's with "So build some Roaches" 40k has to find a point where Mutalisks and Thor's are priced to be more or less balanced against eachother. While also having Thor's be balanced against Mass Roach, and Zergling, and Ultralists and..ect..
Its a much more complex situation because "its ok, X is supposed to counter, use something else' is not good enough.
This is a complete misunderstanding of what people mean by "balance" in the context of a game like this. They don't mean that you should be able to take an army of Mutalisks and put up a good fight against an army of Thors. The whole point of Thors is still that they counter Mutalisks. It's still a balanced game even if some lists have a big advantage over other lists. What people want is a meta populated with diverse and interesting lists, where most units in the game show up at least occasionally. Thor-Mutalisk interactions are a perfectly acceptable and even desirable part of this -- if you bring some units that are weak to Mutalisks, you can keep your list competitive against lists with lots of Mutalisks by also bringing some Thors. It's your need to do well in the meta that keeps you honest -- you could take an army of Thors, and this would crush the occasional army of Mutalisks, but you would lose most of your games against more common TAC armies.
But shouldn't the end goal of balance be that anything taken within the allowed rules should have a roughly equal chance against anything else taken within the allowed rules? (asumming all other factors like skill and luck are equal aswell)
Warhammer is not a computer game. I cannot reset my game and get back my money. I cannot cash in the lictors and buy termagants for the same money. I spent time and effort and money to actually, physically purchase and paint 8 lictors. That was when GW allowed me to go 3 or even 6 deep in units. I bought that many because they are my favorite model in the game.
Now I am playing through an edition that has made lictor absolute trash, but that's OK. I also play into an edition where I cannot make units of lictors, I can only have single models. So If I want to play my 8 lictors I need a minimum of 3 detachments and 8 elite slots to do it. And that's also OK. but if the company that got my money for 8 lictors now comes and states "Ok you can never use more than 3 lictors in an army EVER, because we need to limit OP lists" then they are 100% in the fault, I will consider myself as being cheated out of 5 lictors worth of money and I will skip my scheduled following X purchases in order to make up for the money loss they put me through. And all of this in the name of some "punish the OP lists" which the lictors are obviously not.
I will not calculate the fun factor elimination of not being able to play my favorite models any more because I'm large and generous like that.
For me, the biggest issue is there seems to be no endgame here. GW fixes balance issues that come up in tournaments, but the competitive crowd just move onto the next thing GW didn't fix, so GW fixes that, so they move onto the next thing they missed.
This isn't an endgame. There's no goal here in the end, just GW chasing ITC's tail to fix things being abused in tournaments, only for the goalposts to move further downfield.
Ordana wrote: But shouldn't the end goal of balance be that anything taken within the allowed rules should have a roughly equal chance against anything else taken within the allowed rules? (asumming all other factors like skill and luck are equal aswell)
No, of course not. The idea isn't to render list-building strategically irrelevant. People like strategic list-building. In tabletop wargames and TCGs and a bunch of other kinds of games, part of the appeal is that you're designing an army or a deck of cards or whatever that will give you an advantage in games. Magic (the card game) would be a lot less popular if you could do really well by just selecting 60 random cards for your deck. Players enjoy being able to look for powerful synergies, and part of playing competitively is predicting the meta and tailoring what you bring appropriately. "Balance", for a game like this, is about maximizing the number of competitively-viable units and ensuring that each faction has several different competitive options. Ideally it should also be the case that this is true regardless of the local meta -- if I only ever play Space Marines and my friend only ever plays Orks, and we only ever play with each other, you still want it to be the case that neither of us has a persistent advantage in our games even though an anti-Ork SM list and an anti-SM Ork list will look different from the sorts of lists that show up in tournaments.
One problem GW has with 8th is that it's not actually clear what a "faction" is. Short of significant changes to the way the game works, it would be very hard to make sure that you can have a competitive pure Custodes list without just making Imperial Soup better still. Magic addresses this via its mana system, where the more colors you have the harder it is to actually play your cards, but also it's just pretty up-front about not necessarily trying to balance mono-color decks and "soup" decks.
Ordana wrote: But shouldn't the end goal of balance be that anything taken within the allowed rules should have a roughly equal chance against anything else taken within the allowed rules? (asumming all other factors like skill and luck are equal aswell)
No, of course not. The idea isn't to render list-building strategically irrelevant. People like strategic list-building. In tabletop wargames and TCGs and a bunch of other kinds of games, part of the appeal is that you're designing an army or a deck of cards or whatever that will give you an advantage in games. Magic (the card game) would be a lot less popular if you could do really well by just selecting 60 random cards for your deck. Players enjoy being able to look for powerful synergies, and part of playing competitively is predicting the meta and tailoring what you bring appropriately. "Balance", for a game like this, is about maximizing the number of competitively-viable units and ensuring that each faction has several different competitive options. Ideally it should also be the case that this is true regardless of the local meta -- if I only ever play Space Marines and my friend only ever plays Orks, and we only ever play with each other, you still want it to be the case that neither of us has a persistent advantage in our games even though an anti-Ork SM list and an anti-SM Ork list will look different from the sorts of lists that show up in tournaments.
One problem GW has with 8th is that it's not actually clear what a "faction" is. Short of significant changes to the way the game works, it would be very hard to make sure that you can have a competitive pure Custodes list without just making Imperial Soup better still.
To what degree is it desirable that list-building be irrelevant? We're already getting quite a variety on the top tables depending heavily on the tournament rules:
LVO = Eldar x 100000
GW40kGT: Orks were surprisingly near the top
Adepticon: Flyrants
Meanwhile, chaos of various flavours have been quite strong, and we've seen Custodes, IG, and yes, even SM/BA/other imperial dexes in the top 100 of these tournaments. I bet Necrons and Tau will start popping up there as well - perhaps not tournament wins (those are very difficult to achieve) but certainly competitive lists.
I feel like whatever rules the tournament is using affects which lists will be good at the tournament, which is actually indicative of a game that is balanced at its core: if something is minor enough that "now you choose your objectives before the game" completely swings the way the game is played, then that's actually not too bad.
To what degree is it desirable that list-building be irrelevant? We're already getting quite a variety on the top tables depending heavily on the tournament rules:
LVO = Eldar x 100000
GW40kGT: Orks were surprisingly near the top
Adepticon: Flyrants
Meanwhile, chaos of various flavours have been quite strong, and we've seen Custodes, IG, and yes, even SM/BA/other imperial dexes in the top 100 of these tournaments. I bet Necrons and Tau will start popping up there as well - perhaps not tournament wins (those are very difficult to achieve) but certainly competitive lists.
I feel like whatever rules the tournament is using affects which lists will be good at the tournament, which is actually indicative of a game that is balanced at its core: if something is minor enough that "now you choose your objectives before the game" completely swings the way the game is played, then that's actually not too bad.
I mean, you probably want to look at a lot more than the top tables at a couple of tournaments before you say something like this. But, regardless, that almost all of the super-factions can put up competitive lists doesn't really show that the game is well-balanced. Just look at the lists. It's clear that mostly what's going on is that there are a small number of very powerful units in each that are getting spammed. Like, the problem is not that "Tyranids are too strong". The problem is that Hive Tyrants specifically are way too good, especially given that they can be spammed and virtually null-deployed. List-building is boring because the choices are way too obvious, and then the games are boring because they're often very one-sided and decided by large-scale rock-paper-scissors interactions or luck since every list is a skew list and it depends how your skew matches up to their skew.
Also, the different tournament rules are not small changes. It's a huge deal for Eldar (again, not all Eldar but one or two specific units -- most of the codex is never going to see competitive play as-is) if they can totally protect units from deep strikers by putting them inside LoS-blocking ruins. It's a huge problem for monsters if you're giving up a ton of VPs when people kill a few of them. Choosing your objectives is hardly minor -- your objectives are what determine whether you win!
AaronWilson wrote: I mean these Warhammer 40k - Starcraft comparisons are madness.
Not really. It's an exercise in identifying how restrictions come in all forms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: For me, the biggest issue is there seems to be no endgame here. GW fixes balance issues that come up in tournaments, but the competitive crowd just move onto the next thing GW didn't fix, so GW fixes that, so they move onto the next thing they missed.
This isn't an endgame. There's no goal here in the end, just GW chasing ITC's tail to fix things being abused in tournaments, only for the goalposts to move further downfield.
We're up to SIXTEEN books now (with three more in the pipe likely out before June). Of COURSE there is a lot of stuff that needs to be tackled. More than half of them were written before November of last year. But I guess we should just give up, because things are hard and people are ridiculously impatient.
To what degree is it desirable that list-building be irrelevant? We're already getting quite a variety on the top tables depending heavily on the tournament rules:
LVO = Eldar x 100000
GW40kGT: Orks were surprisingly near the top
Adepticon: Flyrants
Meanwhile, chaos of various flavours have been quite strong, and we've seen Custodes, IG, and yes, even SM/BA/other imperial dexes in the top 100 of these tournaments. I bet Necrons and Tau will start popping up there as well - perhaps not tournament wins (those are very difficult to achieve) but certainly competitive lists.
I feel like whatever rules the tournament is using affects which lists will be good at the tournament, which is actually indicative of a game that is balanced at its core: if something is minor enough that "now you choose your objectives before the game" completely swings the way the game is played, then that's actually not too bad.
I mean, you probably want to look at a lot more than the top tables at a couple of tournaments before you say something like this. But, regardless, that almost all of the super-factions can put up competitive lists doesn't really show that the game is well-balanced. Just look at the lists. It's clear that mostly what's going on is that there are a small number of very powerful units in each that are getting spammed. Like, the problem is not that "Tyranids are too strong". The problem is that Hive Tyrants specifically are way too good, especially given that they can be spammed and virtually null-deployed. List-building is boring because the choices are way too obvious, and then the games are boring because they're often very one-sided and decided by large-scale rock-paper-scissors interactions or luck since every list is a skew list and it depends how your skew matches up to their skew.
Also, the different tournament rules are not small changes. It's a huge deal for Eldar (again, not all Eldar but one or two specific units -- most of the codex is never going to see competitive play as-is) if they can totally protect units from deep strikers by putting them inside LoS-blocking ruins. It's a huge problem for monsters if you're giving up a ton of VPs when people kill a few of them. Choosing your objectives is hardly minor -- your objectives are what determine whether you win!
Right, so back to the question I asked, which you didn't manage to answer: to what degree do we want list-building to be relevant?
If you look in my post history, you see that I agree that using tournament data is a bad thing to determine balance, but the point is (rightly) raised that we don't have any other data. So the data we do have suggests that a variety of armies are on the top tables, and that necessitates a variety of units - Chaos has not Flying Hive Tyrants, Orks have no BA thunder hammer captains, and Tyranids have no dark reapers. I think if you only look at the top 10 or 8 or whatever, you see a lot of repeats of the same units, but if you look in the top 100, the number of different armies that made it at least that far is pretty staggering, especially considering how awkward the game is right now.
And "choosing your objectives" was minor in 7th. Eldar crushed people in Eternal War. Eldar crushed people in Maelstrom. Eldar crushed people in ITC. Eldar crushed people all the time. The game is clearly more well balanced than that, and I would say by a good margin.
Right, so back to the question I asked, which you didn't manage to answer: to what degree do we want list-building to be relevant?
Great question, one I've participated in many many times over the years.
The answer from the internet community seems to usually be list building should be just as important as actually playing, if not a bit more so. This is why narrative games with set lists or historicals are not as popular. Those games typically focus on gameplay over listbuilding. Breaking the game via listbuilding is very much a wanted feature by the general gaming public IMO and I find that a lot of that is rooted in Magic the Gathering style game design which became hugely popular and is now a cornerstone in game design beyond card games and in board and miniiatures games today. A lot of people will pay lip service to wanting balance, but you can't have both balance, and the ability to take 2000 points of something and auto-win vs something else via listbuilding design.
tneva82 wrote: Yeah. In one we have competive developers working who want balance, at other we have incompetent ones who don't even want balance.
Pretty stupid to compare.
Here - have exalt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
topaxygouroun i wrote: Warhammer is not a computer game. I cannot reset my game and get back my money. I cannot cash in the lictors and buy termagants for the same money. I spent time and effort and money to actually, physically purchase and paint 8 lictors. That was when GW allowed me to go 3 or even 6 deep in units. I bought that many because they are my favorite model in the game.
Now I am playing through an edition that has made lictor absolute trash, but that's OK. I also play into an edition where I cannot make units of lictors, I can only have single models. So If I want to play my 8 lictors I need a minimum of 3 detachments and 8 elite slots to do it. And that's also OK. but if the company that got my money for 8 lictors now comes and states "Ok you can never use more than 3 lictors in an army EVER, because we need to limit OP lists" then they are 100% in the fault, I will consider myself as being cheated out of 5 lictors worth of money and I will skip my scheduled following X purchases in order to make up for the money loss they put me through. And all of this in the name of some "punish the OP lists" which the lictors are obviously not.
I will not calculate the fun factor elimination of not being able to play my favorite models any more because I'm large and generous like that.
I agree with you - unit limits are not the answer - it doesn't make sense from a balance or a monetary point of view ether as you pointed out. You are an unhappy customer and you are going to spend less money now.
Right, so back to the question I asked, which you didn't manage to answer: to what degree do we want list-building to be relevant?
If you look in my post history, you see that I agree that using tournament data is a bad thing to determine balance, but the point is (rightly) raised that we don't have any other data. So the data we do have suggests that a variety of armies are on the top tables, and that necessitates a variety of units - Chaos has not Flying Hive Tyrants, Orks have no BA thunder hammer captains, and Tyranids have no dark reapers. I think if you only look at the top 10 or 8 or whatever, you see a lot of repeats of the same units, but if you look in the top 100, the number of different armies that made it at least that far is pretty staggering, especially considering how awkward the game is right now.
And "choosing your objectives" was minor in 7th. Eldar crushed people in Eternal War. Eldar crushed people in Maelstrom. Eldar crushed people in ITC. Eldar crushed people all the time. The game is clearly more well balanced than that, and I would say by a good margin.
It's an ill-posed question if you're wanting more than a very vague and hand-wavey answer. What's the metric you want to be using? What do you even mean by "relevant"? I'm also not sure why you want me to answer it. What point am I making that you disagree with and are trying to circuitously get around to arguing against by having me commit to a position on this seemingly-unrelated thing? Maybe just say what you mean.
But, like, it is obviously perfectly acceptable that list-building will determine some games. I think it's clear that I think that from my earlier posts. If you bring a ton of infantry all kitted out to kill other infantry and your opponent brings a bunch of tanks all kitted out to kill infantry, your opponent should win handily. But -- again I think obviously -- you don't actually want this to be what typical games look like. You don't want the meta to be such that lots of people are bringing absurd skew lists tailored to kill particular other skew lists. Ideally you would like to mostly see a mix of defensive profiles with TAC weapons, and you would like it to be the case that you can't do a great job predicting the outcomes of most real individual games just by looking at the lists.
Right, so back to the question I asked, which you didn't manage to answer: to what degree do we want list-building to be relevant?
If you look in my post history, you see that I agree that using tournament data is a bad thing to determine balance, but the point is (rightly) raised that we don't have any other data. So the data we do have suggests that a variety of armies are on the top tables, and that necessitates a variety of units - Chaos has not Flying Hive Tyrants, Orks have no BA thunder hammer captains, and Tyranids have no dark reapers. I think if you only look at the top 10 or 8 or whatever, you see a lot of repeats of the same units, but if you look in the top 100, the number of different armies that made it at least that far is pretty staggering, especially considering how awkward the game is right now.
And "choosing your objectives" was minor in 7th. Eldar crushed people in Eternal War. Eldar crushed people in Maelstrom. Eldar crushed people in ITC. Eldar crushed people all the time. The game is clearly more well balanced than that, and I would say by a good margin.
It's an ill-posed question if you're wanting more than a very vague and hand-wavey answer. What's the metric you want to be using? What do you even mean by "relevant"? I'm also not sure why you want me to answer it. What point am I making that you disagree with and are trying to circuitously get around to arguing against by having me commit to a position on this seemingly-unrelated thing? Maybe just say what you mean.
But, like, it is obviously perfectly acceptable that list-building will determine some games. I think it's clear that I think that from my earlier posts. If you bring a ton of infantry all kitted out to kill other infantry and your opponent brings a bunch of tanks all kitted out to kill infantry, your opponent should win handily. But -- again I think obviously -- you don't actually want this to be what typical games look like. You don't want the meta to be such that lots of people are bringing absurd skew lists tailored to kill particular other skew lists. Ideally you would like to mostly see a mix of defensive profiles with TAC weapons, and you would like it to be the case that you can't do a great job predicting the outcomes of most real individual games just by looking at the lists.
Gonna reply in the other thread, but just to answer here:
"What is the metric we use?" is a question for those who say list building shouldn't matter, too. It's crucial do have a discussion. You can't just say "list building matters too much." and then when asked 'by what metric' say "WHAT METRIC ARE YOU USING?!"
"What do I mean by relevant?" is a question for everyone. When someone says "list building is too relevant in 40k" - what do they mean? Do they mean it matters to much? What does "mattering too much" mean?
That's what I'm asking. I'm seeing a lot of people saying "List building matters too much!" but when I say "alright, how much is enough?" then they sort of mumble and wring their hands. We can't work towards a solution if we don't have a goal. And I would argue that the game, while not in a great state, is in an adequate enough state that we can let it sit a little while we talk this out.
Well, you could always have GW sit down, build some Official Tourney Lists, and require everyone to play using those. At that point, list-building is removed, armies "look right", and the better generals can strut their stuff without the crutch of broken unit X.
You get to build your own lists for your own games, but for tourney play, you pick from the GW list.
Gonna reply in the other thread, but just to answer here:
"What is the metric we use?" is a question for those who say list building shouldn't matter, too. It's crucial do have a discussion. You can't just say "list building matters too much." and then when asked 'by what metric' say "WHAT METRIC ARE YOU USING?!"
"What do I mean by relevant?" is a question for everyone. When someone says "list building is too relevant in 40k" - what do they mean? Do they mean it matters to much? What does "mattering too much" mean?
That's what I'm asking. I'm seeing a lot of people saying "List building matters too much!" but when I say "alright, how much is enough?" then they sort of mumble and wring their hands. We can't work towards a solution if we don't have a goal. And I would argue that the game, while not in a great state, is in an adequate enough state that we can let it sit a little while we talk this out.
I mean, I don't think that this makes sense as a criticism of anything I've said, since I'm not saying we need some hard-and-fast standard. In general, you don't need to do ideal theory in order to make incremental improvements to something (actually it can sometimes lead you in the wrong direction).
My position is that there's a clear problem which is apparent to basically everyone -- the most competitive lists are boring and often produce boring games. This is largely driven by the existence of extreme imbalances between and within codexes, and problems with the core design of the game that make skew lists much better than lists with a variety of units. I don't need to make this more concrete because I'm not trying to jump to a perfect world in one step. I'm content to identify specific problems -- like Hive Tyrants or Dark Reapers or cheap GEQs or the massive power of alpha strikes -- which are making the game less fun and which could be addressed to make the game more fun. We can stop when we get to a place where we don't see anything else that it'd be fruitful to do -- there's no reason to try to figure out exactly where we're going in advance. And of course the same can be said for things that should be addressed so that they see more play.
Gonna reply in the other thread, but just to answer here: "What is the metric we use?" is a question for those who say list building shouldn't matter, too. It's crucial do have a discussion. You can't just say "list building matters too much." and then when asked 'by what metric' say "WHAT METRIC ARE YOU USING?!" "What do I mean by relevant?" is a question for everyone. When someone says "list building is too relevant in 40k" - what do they mean? Do they mean it matters to much? What does "mattering too much" mean?
That's what I'm asking. I'm seeing a lot of people saying "List building matters too much!" but when I say "alright, how much is enough?" then they sort of mumble and wring their hands. We can't work towards a solution if we don't have a goal. And I would argue that the game, while not in a great state, is in an adequate enough state that we can let it sit a little while we talk this out.
I mean, I don't think that this makes sense as a criticism of anything I've said, since I'm not saying we need some hard-and-fast standard. In general, you don't need to do ideal theory in order to make incremental improvements to something (actually it can sometimes lead you in the wrong direction).
My position is that there's a clear problem which is apparent to basically everyone -- the most competitive lists are boring and often produce boring games. This is largely driven by the existence of extreme imbalances between and within codexes, and problems with the core design of the game that make skew lists much better than lists with a variety of units. I don't need to make this more concrete because I'm not trying to jump to a perfect world in one step. I'm content to identify specific problems -- like Hive Tyrants or Dark Reapers or cheap GEQs or the massive power of alpha strikes -- which are making the game less fun and which could be addressed to make the game more fun. We can stop when we get to a place where we don't see anything else that it'd be fruitful to do -- there's no reason to try to figure out exactly where we're going in advance. And of course the same can be said for things that should be addressed so that they see more play.
Right but my point is, when does a nerf end?
7 Hive Tyrants is "boring and produces boring games." At what point does the game get less boring? Is 5 Hive Tyrants + a Shadowsword boring, like that other list? It certainly provides more unit variety. What about 3 Hive Tyrants and 2 Shadowswords?
Do you get where I am going with this? If you just say "it's subjective" then you've trapped yourself, because that means some people will hate it and some people will like it, and when you change it, you just change the sets of "people who hate it" and "people who like it" and you're just shuffling the people around. Fundamentally, you need to decide when you're 'done', because shuffling people around by subjectively adjusting things based on what you, or someone else, or you and twelve someone-elses, or whatever, believe to be good enough.
You should have objectively verifiable reasons to change something people enjoy - otherwise, you're just putting yourself in the category of "people who enjoy it" and excluding the people whom the changes affected from that category. It's just pointless shuffling.
7 Hive Tyrants is "boring and produces boring games." At what point does the game get less boring? Is 5 Hive Tyrants + a Shadowsword boring, like that other list? It certainly provides more unit variety. What about 3 Hive Tyrants and 2 Shadowswords?
Do you get where I am going with this? If you just say "it's subjective" then you've trapped yourself, because that means some people will hate it and some people will like it, and when you change it, you just change the sets of "people who hate it" and "people who like it" and you're just shuffling the people around. Fundamentally, you need to decide when you're 'done', because shuffling people around by subjectively adjusting things based on what you, or someone else, or you and twelve someone-elses, or whatever, believe to be good enough.
You should have objectively verifiable reasons to change something people enjoy - otherwise, you're just putting yourself in the category of "people who enjoy it" and excluding the people whom the changes affected from that category. It's just pointless shuffling.
I don't think this is right at all. It's a game. The whole point of the thing is for it to be subjectively fun for people. If there were some changes that GW could make that would make the "people who like it" group huge and the "people who hate it" group tiny, then obviously that'd be a great reason for them to make those changes. I point out things that I think could be changed so that I would like the game better. That I think some change would make the game more fun for me is obviously reason enough for me to want it made. I support these positions with arguments that are intended to convince people that they and others would also like the game better, so that then it is reasonable for them too to want the change to be made. I mean, I'm not just saying "nerf Tyrants because I'll like the game better that way" -- I explain what I think the effect of these changes will be on the way the game plays. But I don't think I need to have some rigorous theory of what it means for list-building to matter or how much it ought to matter. I can just appeal to people's actual experience with the game and with whether they feel like it's fun.
7 Hive Tyrants is "boring and produces boring games." At what point does the game get less boring? Is 5 Hive Tyrants + a Shadowsword boring, like that other list? It certainly provides more unit variety. What about 3 Hive Tyrants and 2 Shadowswords?
Do you get where I am going with this? If you just say "it's subjective" then you've trapped yourself, because that means some people will hate it and some people will like it, and when you change it, you just change the sets of "people who hate it" and "people who like it" and you're just shuffling the people around. Fundamentally, you need to decide when you're 'done', because shuffling people around by subjectively adjusting things based on what you, or someone else, or you and twelve someone-elses, or whatever, believe to be good enough.
You should have objectively verifiable reasons to change something people enjoy - otherwise, you're just putting yourself in the category of "people who enjoy it" and excluding the people whom the changes affected from that category. It's just pointless shuffling.
I don't think this is right at all. It's a game. The whole point of the thing is for it to be subjectively fun for people. If there were some changes that GW could make that would make the "people who like it" group huge and the "people who hate it" group tiny, then obviously that'd be a great reason for them to make those changes. I point out things that I think could be changed so that I would like the game better. That I think some change would make the game more fun for me is obviously reason enough for me to want it made. I support these positions with arguments that are intended to convince people that they and others would also like the game better, so that then it is reasonable for them too to want the change to be made. I mean, I'm not just saying "nerf Tyrants because I'll like the game better that way" -- I explain what I think the effect of these changes will be on the way the game plays. But I don't think I need to have some rigorous theory of what it means for list-building to matter or how much it ought to matter. I can just appeal to people's actual experience with the game and with whether they feel like it's fun.
I agree with you premise, but we're back in a circle:
In order to convince me that "the game would be better if we did it your way" then you'll have to convince me and "my feels" aren't convincing. They may be for other people, and that's fine, but in order to be convinced by a position, I'd like to actually know what that position is supporting. Everyone wants the game to be "more fun" but what that means varies so widely that if I just said "sure, let's do it your way" to everyone, I'd find myself supporting directly contradictory views of how the game should be played.
"I feel it isn't fun, so let's make it fun" isn't ... really convincing to me. Give me what you intend to do to make it fun, and why that is good, and where it stops; in other words, tell me what you mean by "fun" according to your perspective.
So new information gathered from 4chan about the FAQ.
1. The FAQ will come out some time before the GT Grand Final but will not be in effect because "we appreciate it doesn't give people enough time to make the changes needed to their lists."
2. Grey Knight Purifiers getting changed, Smite only has a 6" range, but does 2 Mortal Wounds instead of D3 (or D6 as I'm guessing it was before).
Day 19 since AdeptiCon ended. I’ve become lost in the salt mines after a salt hill collapsed. Very little hope for escape now. If you find this, tell my knight I love her
MalfunctBot wrote: So new information gathered from 4chan about the FAQ.
1. The FAQ will come out some time before the GT Grand Final but will not be in effect because "we appreciate it doesn't give people enough time to make the changes needed to their lists."
2. Grey Knight Purifiers getting changed, Smite only has a 6" range, but does 2 Mortal Wounds instead of D3 (or D6 as I'm guessing it was before).
MalfunctBot wrote: So new information gathered from 4chan about the FAQ.
1. The FAQ will come out some time before the GT Grand Final but will not be in effect because "we appreciate it doesn't give people enough time to make the changes needed to their lists."
2. Grey Knight Purifiers getting changed, Smite only has a 6" range, but does 2 Mortal Wounds instead of D3 (or D6 as I'm guessing it was before).
MalfunctBot wrote: So new information gathered from 4chan about the FAQ.
1. The FAQ will come out some time before the GT Grand Final but will not be in effect because "we appreciate it doesn't give people enough time to make the changes needed to their lists."
2. Grey Knight Purifiers getting changed, Smite only has a 6" range, but does 2 Mortal Wounds instead of D3 (or D6 as I'm guessing it was before).
45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants. Part of me hopes tyrants get nerfed so hard they’re unplayable. I mean seriously your going to be that late? Might have just fething dropped the faq and addressed tyrants a few months later in the September faq.
gendoikari87 wrote: 45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants
Hello, welcome to Tau Hell... where we've also been waiting on our Codex FAQ, for a month now
tneva82 wrote: Yeah. In one we have competive developers working who want balance, at other we have incompetent ones who don't even want balance.
Pretty stupid to compare.
Here - have exalt.
I didn't know a strawman supported by an unsubstantiated claim was the bar we set for exalts.
Both statements seem pretty factual to me. Starcraft is widely regarded as the pinnacle of balance in a strategy game. War-hammer 40k widely regarded as a steaming pile of dung in regards to balance with the company itself telling us that they don't care about balance - telling us to forge the narrative and eat pretzels and drink beer. They told us things would change in 8th but they havn't.
gendoikari87 wrote: 45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants
Hello, welcome to Tau Hell... where we've also been waiting on our Codex FAQ, for a month now
Do you think sheild drones will survive this FAQ - if it ever does come? Even as a tau player I kind of feel like I am cheating when I use them.
gendoikari87 wrote: 45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants. Part of me hopes tyrants get nerfed so hard they’re unplayable. I mean seriously your going to be that late? Might have just fething dropped the faq and addressed tyrants a few months later in the September faq.
Who said it was only Tyrants?
Don't you WANT them to carefully consider and playtest changes? On top of continuing codex releases?
gendoikari87 wrote: 45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants. Part of me hopes tyrants get nerfed so hard they’re unplayable. I mean seriously your going to be that late? Might have just fething dropped the faq and addressed tyrants a few months later in the September faq.
*Slow claps*
Indeed - I sure hope they are taking their time fixing all the games problems they missed in the last FAQ and codex FAQ's after every codex.
gendoikari87 wrote: 45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants. Part of me hopes tyrants get nerfed so hard they’re unplayable. I mean seriously your going to be that late? Might have just fething dropped the faq and addressed tyrants a few months later in the September faq.
Don't worry guys, the SPRINGFAQ(tm) will totally be on time and not delayed in the slightest!
March what's a March FAQ never heard of it I think you've got the wrong game
gendoikari87 wrote: 45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants. Part of me hopes tyrants get nerfed so hard they’re unplayable. I mean seriously your going to be that late? Might have just fething dropped the faq and addressed tyrants a few months later in the September faq.
Who said it was only Tyrants?
Don't you WANT them to carefully consider and playtest changes? On top of continuing codex releases?
i want them to keep their word, not put a month and a half moratorium on buying their products. Drop what they have on time, everything else can wait for September. And what they can’t get to in September.... guess what March come around again
Do you think sheild drones will survive this FAQ - if it ever does come? Even as a tau player I kind of feel like I am cheating when I use them.
If Shield Drones/Saviour Protocols get nerfed I'm going to be running nothing but Firewarriors all in min-squads as a form of protest. We're putting aside chunks of our army that have literally no use but dying so our 150 Point Broadsides and 300 Point Riptides can actually have a shooting phase before being shot off the table.
Our suits don't need to get driven into the dirt anymore than they already have.
Also apologies if I screw up the quote in anyway, it's 2am at the moment and my phone is garbage.
gendoikari87 wrote: 45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants. Part of me hopes tyrants get nerfed so hard they’re unplayable. I mean seriously your going to be that late? Might have just fething dropped the faq and addressed tyrants a few months later in the September faq.
Who said it was only Tyrants?
Don't you WANT them to carefully consider and playtest changes? On top of continuing codex releases?
i want them to keep their word, not put a month and a half moratorium on buying their products. Drop what they have on time, everything else can wait for September. And what they can’t get to in September.... guess what March come around again
1) What other word have they "broken"?
2) Are they not allowed to adjust for unforeseen circumstances? It's not like they didn't release the FAQ AND said nothing.
3) Why are you so sure there many are pieces that would be easily separated?
4) What percentage of the forum do you estimate would bitch anyway if they didn't make these changes now?
5) Why is kicking the can down the road preferable?
Ash87 wrote: Would be nice to at least get a timetable here from GW.
I don't even care if it's going to be like, a Summer FAQ at this point, as long as I know a vague guesstimate.
That's always extremely frustrating because I've been sitting here for multiple weeks now going: "Should I play this week, or just wait?"
Why on earth would a potential faq coming out stop you from playing the game you enjoy?
Hold off on buying for tournament play I can understand. but not playing?
Teh feth.
Bharring wrote: The pinnacle of balance in a strategy game is Chess, not Starcraft.
And it's been discovered that White is OP.
Some formats have patched it to an extent with how they do army trades between games.
So if the pinnacle of balance is not balanced....
White is OP. At the top level black can't win. Not a very balanced game. Also - they have the exact same peices on both sides so it's automatically balanced - it's a little cheap to call on chess in this discussion - the games we are talking about have different units/armies - so some thought had to be put into it.
Do you think sheild drones will survive this FAQ - if it ever does come? Even as a tau player I kind of feel like I am cheating when I use them.
If Shield Drones/Saviour Protocols get nerfed I'm going to be running nothing but Firewarriors all in min-squads as a form of protest. We're putting aside chunks of our army that have literally no use but dying so our 150 Point Broadsides and 300 Point Riptides can actually have a shooting phase before being shot off the table.
Our suits don't need to get driven into the dirt anymore than they already have.
Also apologies if I screw up the quote in anyway, it's 2am at the moment and my phone is garbage.
I haven't kept up on Tau. What exactly is the shield drone issue?
Do you think sheild drones will survive this FAQ - if it ever does come? Even as a tau player I kind of feel like I am cheating when I use them.
If Shield Drones/Saviour Protocols get nerfed I'm going to be running nothing but Firewarriors all in min-squads as a form of protest. We're putting aside chunks of our army that have literally no use but dying so our 150 Point Broadsides and 300 Point Riptides can actually have a shooting phase before being shot off the table.
Our suits don't need to get driven into the dirt anymore than they already have.
Also apologies if I screw up the quote in anyway, it's 2am at the moment and my phone is garbage.
I haven't kept up on Tau. What exactly is the shield drone issue?
Drones can intercept any hit now on a 2+ and they just take a mortal wound. So las cannons are pretty worthless against them. Sheild drones have a 5+ FNP too.
Do you think sheild drones will survive this FAQ - if it ever does come? Even as a tau player I kind of feel like I am cheating when I use them.
If Shield Drones/Saviour Protocols get nerfed I'm going to be running nothing but Firewarriors all in min-squads as a form of protest. We're putting aside chunks of our army that have literally no use but dying so our 150 Point Broadsides and 300 Point Riptides can actually have a shooting phase before being shot off the table.
Our suits don't need to get driven into the dirt anymore than they already have.
Also apologies if I screw up the quote in anyway, it's 2am at the moment and my phone is garbage.
I haven't kept up on Tau. What exactly is the shield drone issue?
Drones work differently to the Bodyguard rule that other armies (and even Crisis Bodyguards) possess. Instead of taking individual wounds for a character after they've gone through their saves, if, say, a lascannon wounds a Crisis Suit instead of rolling your save you can pawn off the hit to a Drone, which will take an automatic Mortal Wound instead of the D6 (which will instantly kill the Drone unless it's a Shield Drone, which can ignore wounds on a 5+).
Tau rely very heavily on this rule to ensure our expensive (and quite trash when taken in a vacuum) Battlesuits don't evaporate the moment a heavy weapon glances in its direction.
gendoikari87 wrote: 45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants. Part of me hopes tyrants get nerfed so hard they’re unplayable. I mean seriously your going to be that late? Might have just fething dropped the faq and addressed tyrants a few months later in the September faq.
45 days? It was a March FAQ. It's 12 days late, son.
gendoikari87 wrote: 45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants. Part of me hopes tyrants get nerfed so hard they’re unplayable. I mean seriously your going to be that late? Might have just fething dropped the faq and addressed tyrants a few months later in the September faq.
45 days? It was a March FAQ. It's 12 days late, son.
Drones work differently to the Bodyguard rule that other armies (and even Crisis Bodyguards) possess. Instead of taking individual wounds for a character after they've gone through their saves, if, say, a lascannon wounds a Crisis Suit instead of rolling your save you can pawn off the hit to a Drone, which will take an automatic Mortal Wound instead of the D6 (which will instantly kill the Drone unless it's a Shield Drone, which can ignore wounds on a 5+).
Tau rely very heavily on this rule to ensure our expensive (and quite trash when taken in a vacuum) Battlesuits don't evaporate the moment a heavy weapon glances in its direction.
Ah, yea, that's pretty much how I have seen it played.
It's 185 for W14 T7 2+/5++ on a Riptide. I pay 120 for W12 T7 3+/5++ and heal (Forgefiend). Seems pretty reasonable to me considering is 10 points a drone and you can shoot the drones (in LOS anyway).
gendoikari87 wrote: 45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants. Part of me hopes tyrants get nerfed so hard they’re unplayable. I mean seriously your going to be that late? Might have just fething dropped the faq and addressed tyrants a few months later in the September faq.
45 days? It was a March FAQ. It's 12 days late, son.
You guys need to chill out, maybe take a break.
Think hes talking about codex faqs
Nada. T'au preoder was March 10 making the expected FAQ on 3/24, so 18 days on that one. Sounds like it certainly will get to at least 45 though!
gendoikari87 wrote: 45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants. Part of me hopes tyrants get nerfed so hard they’re unplayable. I mean seriously your going to be that late? Might have just fething dropped the faq and addressed tyrants a few months later in the September faq.
Who said it was only Tyrants?
Don't you WANT them to carefully consider and playtest changes? On top of continuing codex releases?
i want them to keep their word, not put a month and a half moratorium on buying their products. Drop what they have on time, everything else can wait for September. And what they can’t get to in September.... guess what March come around again
1) What other word have they "broken"?
2) Are they not allowed to adjust for unforeseen circumstances? It's not like they didn't release the FAQ AND said nothing.
3) Why are you so sure there many are pieces that would be easily separated?
4) What percentage of the forum do you estimate would bitch anyway if they didn't make these changes now?
5) Why is kicking the can down the road preferable?
1. Lets start with what they’ve kept which is 0 they missed the first damn deadline
2. Yes here’s how you adjust “guys we are aware of the issue we’re going to take our time to get it right instead of rushing it, this will be addressed in September or in a stand alone faq if and when we feel it is perfect “
3. Maybe it’s one piece. Maybe it’s 90%. Honor your word take your time drop what is available on time
4. Let them bitch they’ll still buy instead of holding off
5. Because 6 months as opposed to 45 days is longer to work on it and not an unbearable amount of time for it not to be addressed
Bharring wrote: The pinnacle of balance in a strategy game is Chess, not Starcraft.
And it's been discovered that White is OP.
Some formats have patched it to an extent with how they do army trades between games.
So if the pinnacle of balance is not balanced....
Chess is not the pinnacle of anything. Computers already trivially stomp humans at it. Go is a much better game.
Computers stomping masters at go now too. Good news in 40k is if computers played it we could still beat them. Unless they also learn how to roll dice better than us.
1. Lets start with what they’ve kept which is 0 they missed the first damn deadline
So none of the codex FAQs count?
2. Yes here’s how you adjust “guys we are aware of the issue we’re going to take our time to get it right instead of rushing it, this will be addressed in September or in a stand alone faq if and when we feel it is perfect “
It seems apparent that they are not rushing it. If you take your statement and remove September then it's basically what they've said already.
3. Maybe it’s one piece. Maybe it’s 90%. Honor your word take your time drop what is available on time
And we know absolutely none of what they've done. You're just looking for a reason to be pissed while also pushing them to not release the rest for months.
4. Let them bitch they’ll still buy instead of holding off
Make one half mad or the other half. What's a GW to do?
5. Because 6 months as opposed to 45 days is longer to work on it and not an unbearable amount of time for it not to be addressed
on admech. Because of that, i doubt it would be limited like that, as you'd never be able to have more than 1 unit of Robots total.
Halve the damage on reapers, jack up flyrant wings 50 pts, make guardsmen 6 
. Things that don’t affect detachments (I.E Ogryn/Scions in a Cadian detachment) don’t prevent swaps.
