Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 auticus wrote:
Unrestricted list building with no restrictions is a major reason why the games are horrible in terms of balance and why min/maxing is so easy.

GW games are the only games to my knowledge that have unrestricted list building. Every other wargame I have ever played has had restrictions for a good reason.

IDK, I play a lot of game systems and AOS is among the more restrictive feeling. I suppose the Ally allotment feels pretty open but there's so little incentive to use it I barely consider it part of the rules. Most of the time if something is strong enough to play as an ally, you're probably just better off playing that army instead.

40k is an odd one. It seems unrestricted but its really fairly limited. There are endless choices, but GW has spent so many years repacking the same models with a literal new coat of paint that within keyword there's a ton of redundancy. As it stands now I think about half or more of the "armies" in 40k are about as significantly different factions as the subthemes most other games collect under one banner. I find the current system rather restrictive as well, but mostly because its overloaded with false options. It lets you do a lot of things it will then happily punish you for.

 LunarSol wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Unrestricted list building with no restrictions is a major reason why the games are horrible in terms of balance and why min/maxing is so easy.

GW games are the only games to my knowledge that have unrestricted list building. Every other wargame I have ever played has had restrictions for a good reason.

IDK, I play a lot of game systems and AOS is among the more restrictive feeling. I suppose the Ally allotment feels pretty open but there's so little incentive to use it I barely consider it part of the rules. Most of the time if something is strong enough to play as an ally, you're probably just better off playing that army instead.

40k is an odd one. It seems unrestricted but its really fairly limited. There are endless choices, but GW has spent so many years repacking the same models with a literal new coat of paint that within keyword there's a ton of redundancy. As it stands now I think about half or more of the "armies" in 40k are about as significantly different factions as the subthemes most other games collect under one banner. I find the current system rather restrictive as well, but mostly because its overloaded with false options. It lets you do a lot of things it will then happily punish you for.

I don't think that's the sort of restrictions people are referring to. Restrictions in this sense is to do with what you're allowed to take according to the army selection rules. In that sense 40k basically has no restrictions at all. What you're describing is more of a balance/bloat issue where GW haven't balanced properly, resulting in a lot of choices being bad. If, for example, all your Heavy Support choices are terrible, that's a separate problem to being able to take 18 of them in the first place.

Yeah, I get it. 40k's restrictions are based on incentives (and a lack thereof). It's a system trying very hard to say "well, yes.... but actually... no".

I personally think the detachment system is brilliant, but half baked. I'd love to see it reworked, because there's so many good ideas in it that have sadly mostly been dropped in favor of making battalions the only real option.

IDK, I play a lot of game systems and AOS is among the more restrictive feeling.

I really really don't see how this could be true. You can take pretty much whatever you want in AOS, and then they have their "battleline" which would be great until they start slotting elite units as battleline as well.

The 8 steam tank "army" that Ben Johnson was touting on twitter was the straw that broke my back.

We may be talking about two different things which fair enough.

Mandragola wrote:

Andykp wrote:

A.T. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I would rather have an open rule set where you can do this work your self and make the game work for any situation than have a dull game with no character that’s balanced and competetive.

Or alternatively start with a more balanced game that you can choose to unbalance if you want.

I don't get this 'balanced equals dull'. If I play a balanced(ish) game and am winning or losing it's probably because of the choices I am making, whereas kicking someone's ass by pushing my overpowered army up the table with a croupier stick is no fun at all, for me or my opponent.

 Suzuteo wrote:
You can't copyright rules. (Well, unless you are Tetris.)

Tell that to GW, that was an excerpt from one of their cease and desist letters to a website hosting GW rules.

Because this thread is about why the competive scene is getting so much hate. And at the minute it’s because the vocal minority of competitive players on the Internet call for measure that would balance the game but make it very dull. Restricting choices, detachments, stripping away special rules, banning mixed armies, streamlining away the character of units and armies. If people could find balance measures that didn’t do that I’d be ok with it.

You can balance pick up games very easily without changing the rules at all, one, don’t force the games to use match play and tournament rules. Like rule of 3, and points. Use power level and random missions. Two, don’t be a jerk. Talk to each other. Play for fun. Make up a story about your armies and the battle, who are they, why is it happening. Easy. Fun pick up game where ORKS can have a fun battle against iron hands or who ever.

One thing that I totally support is having different systems for competitive play and casual play, as 40k does. If you want to play with power level instead of points, no rule of three and so on, then the game absolutely supports that. Go ahead - open play is every bit as "official" as matched play. If other people want to use all those things, then that’s also fine surely, isn’t it? It’s their game, not yours. None of us own what other people do.

And so where competitive players are talking about wanting restrictions, that should explicitly be for matched play and not casual play. In casual play, the best balancing method is a pre-game conversation between the players. No rules writer can come up with a better system than you can through talking to your fellow gamers.

But that doesn’t work for all situations. It kind of requires that you know each other and have some history of playing, to figure out how to balance things going forward. And so those of us playing pick up games or tournaments require a different system to balance our games against opponents we’ve never met before. It can’t really be as good as what you can manage over time, but it has to do as well as it can.

I’d like to understand more about how attempts to balance the game make things worse for casual players. The most recent example is probably the Iron Hands codex, which got a pretty major (and in my opinion entirely warranted) power reduction yesterday. Are you saying that a change such as reducing the effect of the Ironstone is less fun, and if so, how? Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick here?

I like the system as it is now too, with open plays and match play, but the issue is when match play becomes the standard. Which it has apparently. All the comments above yours talked of good times of restriction and balance in 3rd and early 5th edition. To me they were the dullest least enjoyable times in the game. Third killed my interest and it didn’t pick up again until 6th. 2nd on the other hand with all its crazy rules and colour and fun was the golden time to me. Yes it was open to abuse but that comes back to not being a jerk. Someone mentioned how 7 flying tyrants or loads of plague crawlers were common Pre rule of 3. It doesn’t take much self awareness to know that bringing that list to a pick up game is being a jerk.

In response to you wanting to know more about how balance makes more dullness, it doesn’t by definition. I don’t know much about the iron hands update as it doesn’t interest me but it sounds like a good move across the board for match and casual play. The problem comes when you get suggestions like banning mixed faction armies, or only having one detachment. Some balance solutions have no effect on character. But tailoring the game entirely to match play and making the only way to do it or the default makes the game dull as I don’t enjoy match play. I enjoy narrative play with quirky rules and missions. That are inherently unbalanced at times but that’s the fun to me.

So balance isn’t the issue, balance at any cost is. Other than that agree with u. Talk to people.

If you want a truly balanced competitive game of 40k then I have suggested many times and can see no argument against it, GW make a tournament edition. Separate From the main game. With stripped down riles and stats. No options for units, just they do x attack shooting and y in combat. Do away with wound rolls etc. Speed it all up and make list building quick and effective. My idea would be based on epic 40000 that had a similar mechanic but I hear apocalypse has many features competitive players like, not played it yet myself. That way match play could become pick up play and chill out a bit, open and narrative (the same to me) stay as they are everyone is happy. No one buys new armies, just one new expansion, maybe a 59 box of rules and tokens for tourney play. Bingo. Happy days.

X-wing has been doing a fairly good job of trying to balance competitive play and the variety of builds have been quite fun, I dare say even characterful.

I am naive enough to believe that 40k can be balanced if the business is willing to do so, the problem is they may not admit to it but their best marketing tool is to rejig the rules to sell product "the new hotness".

I think part of the problem is simply that the playerbase doesn't have very realistic expectations of what balance looks like for the game the size of 40k. GW seems honestly invested in it and overall they're doing a solid job, but the rules themselves don't provide real variety of win conditions or strategy to create the design space necessary for the volume of units that exist. The fact is there's dozens of models all vying for the same role of "does damage/doesn't die first" and even if everyone was equally good at that job, you wouldn't see that result in the kind of "balance" people expect.

I've played a lot of games competitively and they all narrow things down quickly. They all need constant changes to keep up with the playerbase, and the playerbase always tears apart whatever fixes are put in place within hours. Far better designers have tried and failed to create the kind of sustained balance people envision and none of held up in the wild.

Honestly, in terms of faction representation and build diversity, the last 6 months has seen 40k pan out as one of the most competitively diverse meta environments I've ever seen. It's just never good enough. Understanding that and understanding what aspects of it you have control over are the only real options; not just for GW games, but competitive gaming as a genre.

Andykp wrote:

Mandragola wrote:

Andykp wrote:

A.T. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I would rather have an open rule set where you can do this work your self and make the game work for any situation than have a dull game with no character that’s balanced and competetive.

Or alternatively start with a more balanced game that you can choose to unbalance if you want.

I don't get this 'balanced equals dull'. If I play a balanced(ish) game and am winning or losing it's probably because of the choices I am making, whereas kicking someone's ass by pushing my overpowered army up the table with a croupier stick is no fun at all, for me or my opponent.

 Suzuteo wrote:
You can't copyright rules. (Well, unless you are Tetris.)

Tell that to GW, that was an excerpt from one of their cease and desist letters to a website hosting GW rules.

Because this thread is about why the competive scene is getting so much hate. And at the minute it’s because the vocal minority of competitive players on the Internet call for measure that would balance the game but make it very dull. Restricting choices, detachments, stripping away special rules, banning mixed armies, streamlining away the character of units and armies. If people could find balance measures that didn’t do that I’d be ok with it.

You can balance pick up games very easily without changing the rules at all, one, don’t force the games to use match play and tournament rules. Like rule of 3, and points. Use power level and random missions. Two, don’t be a jerk. Talk to each other. Play for fun. Make up a story about your armies and the battle, who are they, why is it happening. Easy. Fun pick up game where ORKS can have a fun battle against iron hands or who ever.

One thing that I totally support is having different systems for competitive play and casual play, as 40k does. If you want to play with power level instead of points, no rule of three and so on, then the game absolutely supports that. Go ahead - open play is every bit as "official" as matched play. If other people want to use all those things, then that’s also fine surely, isn’t it? It’s their game, not yours. None of us own what other people do.

And so where competitive players are talking about wanting restrictions, that should explicitly be for matched play and not casual play. In casual play, the best balancing method is a pre-game conversation between the players. No rules writer can come up with a better system than you can through talking to your fellow gamers.

But that doesn’t work for all situations. It kind of requires that you know each other and have some history of playing, to figure out how to balance things going forward. And so those of us playing pick up games or tournaments require a different system to balance our games against opponents we’ve never met before. It can’t really be as good as what you can manage over time, but it has to do as well as it can.

I’d like to understand more about how attempts to balance the game make things worse for casual players. The most recent example is probably the Iron Hands codex, which got a pretty major (and in my opinion entirely warranted) power reduction yesterday. Are you saying that a change such as reducing the effect of the Ironstone is less fun, and if so, how? Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick here?

I like the system as it is now too, with open plays and match play, but the issue is when match play becomes the standard. Which it has apparently. All the comments above yours talked of good times of restriction and balance in 3rd and early 5th edition. To me they were the dullest least enjoyable times in the game. Third killed my interest and it didn’t pick up again until 6th. 2nd on the other hand with all its crazy rules and colour and fun was the golden time to me. Yes it was open to abuse but that comes back to not being a jerk. Someone mentioned how 7 flying tyrants or loads of plague crawlers were common Pre rule of 3. It doesn’t take much self awareness to know that bringing that list to a pick up game is being a jerk.

In response to you wanting to know more about how balance makes more dullness, it doesn’t by definition. I don’t know much about the iron hands update as it doesn’t interest me but it sounds like a good move across the board for match and casual play. The problem comes when you get suggestions like banning mixed faction armies, or only having one detachment. Some balance solutions have no effect on character. But tailoring the game entirely to match play and making the only way to do it or the default makes the game dull as I don’t enjoy match play. I enjoy narrative play with quirky rules and missions. That are inherently unbalanced at times but that’s the fun to me.

So balance isn’t the issue, balance at any cost is. Other than that agree with u. Talk to people.

If you want a truly balanced competitive game of 40k then I have suggested many times and can see no argument against it, GW make a tournament edition. Separate From the main game. With stripped down riles and stats. No options for units, just they do x attack shooting and y in combat. Do away with wound rolls etc. Speed it all up and make list building quick and effective. My idea would be based on epic 40000 that had a similar mechanic but I hear apocalypse has many features competitive players like, not played it yet myself. That way match play could become pick up play and chill out a bit, open and narrative (the same to me) stay as they are everyone is happy. No one buys new armies, just one new expansion, maybe a 59 box of rules and tokens for tourney play. Bingo. Happy days.

Thanks for a constructive reply. I can certainly appreciate that you'd be frustrated by matched play becoming the standard, if that's not how you want to play.

I can see a case for using matched play between players who don't know each other, at least at first. It's good to have a baseline situation to work from. Then you can talk to each other and discuss how you'd like to play in future.

Your proposal for a "tournament standard" set of rules is interesting. I don't necessarily like all your suggestions but the central point - trying to create a balanced game for people who want it - makes sense. My only concern would be that it might overtake matched play to become the unofficial standard format, restricting you even further.

 LunarSol wrote:
I think part of the problem is simply that the playerbase doesn't have very realistic expectations of what balance looks like for the game the size of 40k. GW seems honestly invested in it and overall they're doing a solid job, but the rules themselves don't provide real variety of win conditions or strategy to create the design space necessary for the volume of units that exist. The fact is there's dozens of models all vying for the same role of "does damage/doesn't die first" and even if everyone was equally good at that job, you wouldn't see that result in the kind of "balance" people expect.

I've played a lot of games competitively and they all narrow things down quickly. They all need constant changes to keep up with the playerbase, and the playerbase always tears apart whatever fixes are put in place within hours. Far better designers have tried and failed to create the kind of sustained balance people envision and none of held up in the wild.

Honestly, in terms of faction representation and build diversity, the last 6 months has seen 40k pan out as one of the most competitively diverse meta environments I've ever seen. It's just never good enough. Understanding that and understanding what aspects of it you have control over are the only real options; not just for GW games, but competitive gaming as a genre.

Well yes. And also, no.

There are some kinds of imbalance that are sort of ok. It's ok for an Iron Hands repulsor to be better than an Ultramarines repulsor, because Iron Hands are supposed to be about tanks and Ultramarines have their own strengths that they can play to (at least in theory).

But there are a whole load of units in 40k that simply don't work at all. Howling Banshees are a good example because GW is currently trying to sell us all boxes of them. They are a melee unit that is unable to get across the board and that can't really kill much when it gets there. These kinds of units are so bad that you question whether you'd be better off not taking them at all, rather than give up VPs every game when they inevitably die.

Part of the problem, as I understand it, is that the models drive everything - not the rules. Rules writers have to write for the models they're given. So you get given Howling Banshees, but no model for a cheap transport that would provide an efficient way of getting them into combat - plus they're obviously not equipped to take on tanks. As a writer, there's only so much you can really do in that situation.

But the writers still aren't blameless. Rules seem to keep coming out, like say the pre-nerf Ironstone or the new Salamanders self sacrifice stratagem, that indicate GW simply isn't paying attention.

It may not be possible to achieve perfect balance. But you can look like you're trying.

Mandragola wrote:

But there are a whole load of units in 40k that simply don't work at all. Howling Banshees are a good example because GW is currently trying to sell us all boxes of them. They are a melee unit that is unable to get across the board and that can't really kill much when it gets there. These kinds of units are so bad that you question whether you'd be better off not taking them at all, rather than give up VPs every game when they inevitably die.

The biggest problem with games that don't retire options is that the amount of models the developers can actually pay attention to is finite. As the catalog grows, the list of models that get ignored grows along with it. It's not a straight loss, since looking at old models means working with a baseline, but stuff definitely gets left behind. This is doubly true as stuff gets added that isn't really core to a faction's playstyle. As the game grows, the number of things that just didn't work out and can't really fit into the modern design ethos without a major overhaul keeps growing. As long as players want more stuff and are unwilling to let old stuff go, some things just aren't going to get the time needed to find their place in the game.

 LunarSol wrote:

Mandragola wrote:

But there are a whole load of units in 40k that simply don't work at all. Howling Banshees are a good example because GW is currently trying to sell us all boxes of them. They are a melee unit that is unable to get across the board and that can't really kill much when it gets there. These kinds of units are so bad that you question whether you'd be better off not taking them at all, rather than give up VPs every game when they inevitably die.

The biggest problem with games that don't retire options is that the amount of models the developers can actually pay attention to is finite. As the catalog grows, the list of models that get ignored grows along with it. It's not a straight loss, since looking at old models means working with a baseline, but stuff definitely gets left behind. This is doubly true as stuff gets added that isn't really core to a faction's playstyle. As the game grows, the number of things that just didn't work out and can't really fit into the modern design ethos without a major overhaul keeps growing. As long as players want more stuff and are unwilling to let old stuff go, some things just aren't going to get the time needed to find their place in the game.

I have to give AoS a lot of credit for culling stuff like they have for this reason alone. The creation of Legends and the retirement of models into that book is also a step in the right direction as well.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Mandragola wrote:

But there are a whole load of units in 40k that simply don't work at all. Howling Banshees are a good example because GW is currently trying to sell us all boxes of them. They are a melee unit that is unable to get across the board and that can't really kill much when it gets there. These kinds of units are so bad that you question whether you'd be better off not taking them at all, rather than give up VPs every game when they inevitably die.

The biggest problem with games that don't retire options is that the amount of models the developers can actually pay attention to is finite. As the catalog grows, the list of models that get ignored grows along with it. It's not a straight loss, since looking at old models means working with a baseline, but stuff definitely gets left behind. This is doubly true as stuff gets added that isn't really core to a faction's playstyle. As the game grows, the number of things that just didn't work out and can't really fit into the modern design ethos without a major overhaul keeps growing. As long as players want more stuff and are unwilling to let old stuff go, some things just aren't going to get the time needed to find their place in the game.

I have to give AoS a lot of credit for culling stuff like they have for this reason alone. The creation of Legends and the retirement of models into that book is also a step in the right direction as well.

I don't agree.
Legends is IP madness.
All GW/Citadel models should be represented under standard rules.
That is a space marine captain.
He can take a W
He can add a wound for p, then call him a Z.
He can ... abc.

Developers assign points to that stuff, mostly the same but for stuff like this -
shuriken gun 3 (rending, make some situational rule so if the sneaky eldar outsmart the monkeys, then the monkeys get flayed) (pricey but eldar are running out of stuff, cuz eldar)
bolter 1 (this is basically a point as a standard measure is an inch)
shoota -1 (yes, the dumb ork loses an extra attack in h2h, so, cheaper ork)

This can end up with an ork being base shoota, pay for extra h2h weapon.
Eldar troops are base 8.
Guard base 5 (get some ranked riflemen advantage in certain situations, a bit more common than the eldar special rule but also less deadly)
Ork base 4 with a shoota.

Anyone can pay 1 point to drop their main gun and get an extra h2h.
Eldar get a mini-power sword with that swap.

Back when initiative was a thing... well.
Many handles to balance by.

Marines Orks Necrons Chaos - Rock
Eldar Nids Chaos GSC - Scissors
Inq/Imp/SoB Chaos Guard Squats - Paper

This can change, but...
no need for every monopose easy to assemble 28mm model made of plastic
that costs the same as lunch for a week if you are careful
to have its own special rules, now... is there?

Points just don't work out like that. A power sword's value varies greatly based on the stats of its wielder. The value of a wielder's stats varies greatly based on its equipment.

You CAN just assign points and do it that way, but some combinations are more efficient than others (almost always things that don't pay for stats they don't use, like a WS 6+ BS 2+ Heavy Weapons guy). The end result is a ton of "bad" choices and people upset that their points aren't balanced.

 LunarSol wrote:
Points just don't work out like that. A power sword's value varies greatly based on the stats of its wielder. The value of a wielder's stats varies greatly based on its equipment.

You CAN just assign points and do it that way, but some combinations are more efficient than others (almost always things that don't pay for stats they don't use, like a WS 6+ BS 2+ Heavy Weapons guy). The end result is a ton of "bad" choices and people upset that their points aren't balanced.

that is why the eldar get one for the point upgrade in my little sketch above, exactly to that point.

i see that there are bad choices, and some uber-optimals, and this drives the so-called meta that people chase,
which is apparently a hobby.

my point is simply that - as most all units have access to most all the same tech (looks diff, does basically same things)
then the game is less gimicky, less ponderous, and can afford greater realism, more actual hobby,
a greater emphasis on background and environmental interactions,
a finer turn structure with alternating activations,
and all of this in less time than with 3d3 unless 6s, and comboed with the buffmander 6+ bonus cuz command points 3 inches bubble that saves the world, in which case 4d7 ridick special rules on ever other thing, wait for the rerolls on the rerolls, and so on.

Not Online!!! wrote:

It does indeed seem to be a sort of Whaling. I just don't think its a good long term strategy. I am still haunted perhaps by watching the model train industry implode since that is what I was into before wargamming.

It isn't, it's a bubble chasing based concept.
And me personally they have mostly priced out.

Which is horrible. They should not be pricing people out of the market. It's insanity. The 230 buck eldar box set is an example. What a freaking bubble. Cost per unit in production has come way down. Use of 3D and digital sculpting tools has decreased development time for models to less than a quarter of what it used to both cost and in time.

So the only costs that are really rising these days are TAXES and LABOR. The newer production method is extremely labor saving. So why the price hikes? It's called a near monopoly. there is GW and then everything else. Nothing else comes close to the scale and size of GWs market share.

They should not PRICE their own market out of itself. It's stupid. But then again corps seem to be struck by a mass stupidity in this era.

As for the balance argument....

I challenge you. Next game here is your army list:
2 FULL Troops Choices.- infantry only allowed (AKA no scatpacks or bikes as troops or elites as troops, etc or other nonsense). You may add a transport for them.
1 Heavy Support (full size or otherwise)
1 Elite
1 Fast Attack (for you eldar players here is where your scatpacks go, they never belonged in troops).
2 HQ. -no named characters-

Now take ANY army from any current codex and give it a go and tell me how it plays out. What I presented is considered the "Classical" GW army. This design goes back to RT days (before we actually had the type designations). I am willing to be every single army will be balanced no matter what you put in those slots from the choices available for that slot. You need to play about 10 games to get a feel, but give it a go. Classic GW. No points needed. Fill those slots as you see fit according to the codex. I don't think GW balances at all outside of that model.

Generally the above can be modified as follows and should still be fun to play:
2 or 3 heavy support choices, but one or no (2or3 depending) elites or fast attack (This will be a punch army not a mobility one)
2 or 3 Elites (same as above)- Elite Army
2 or 3 Fast Attack (same as above)- Mobility Army

Tbf i got mostly priced out aswell as the fact my favourite faction got ooped.
Most likely due to not selling good enough.
However gw considered an upgrade sprue for 12£ ontop of 25£ cadians great value for a army based on infantry that also is generally 3-4 pts.

So i could choose between kitbashing out of GW or GI to anvil.
Anvil was cheaper and had higher quality and gave me all the options i wanted.

 LunarSol wrote:
Points just don't work out like that. A power sword's value varies greatly based on the stats of its wielder. The value of a wielder's stats varies greatly based on its equipment.

You can take that into account with costing. Just modify the cost of the weapon based on the relevant stats of the wielder.

It means you need a spreadsheet to determine costs, rather than mental math in the back of the book, but that isn't necessarily a dealbreaker- I've played some great games, like Squadron Strike, that provided said spreadsheet as free downloadable software. Plug in your desired stats and equipment and it spits out a points cost.

The problem is that this requires that there is some underlying logic to how points are calculated, rather than costs being arbitrarily assigned on a per-unit basis.

 catbarf wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Points just don't work out like that. A power sword's value varies greatly based on the stats of its wielder. The value of a wielder's stats varies greatly based on its equipment.

You can take that into account with costing. Just modify the cost of the weapon based on the relevant stats of the wielder.

It means you need a spreadsheet to determine costs, rather than mental math in the back of the book, but that isn't necessarily a dealbreaker- I've played some great games, like Squadron Strike, that provided said spreadsheet as free downloadable software. Plug in your desired stats and equipment and it spits out a points cost.

The problem is that this requires that there is some underlying logic to how points are calculated, rather than costs being arbitrarily assigned on a per-unit basis.

Which is why I pointed out that I don't think that points are anything other than arbitrary at this stage. Most points are based of older points, where were based off older points, and so on. Back a long time ago points actually seemed to make more sense.

As I said, try some battles as posted above. Full squads (no MSU). That is pretty much "how the game was intended to play". Which is why PL actually makes MORE sense when you play enough PL games you start to see it. The game was designed around and only balanced (play testing) on the "classic concept" of 40k that goes way back when most people fielded armies with 20 mostly troops and very few elite/heavy/fast attack. It's been so long that in most folks memory they don't recall that. But to think the game is balanced any differently today is wrong. It isn't .. now with the FAQs and stuff they are trying it is all "after effect" rather than "intended design".. a better term would be GWs FAQ method to move towards balance is REACTIONARY rather than PROACTIVE.

Try some "classic" battles with different options and armies and you might find they are pretty balanced.. not perfectly. But the game will "play as intended".
No special characters. No MSU. No troop-scatbikes, not swapping elites into troops. Just straight up troops with some specialized support.

Of course.. not a single tournament player plays that way. Hasn't for decades. What I am referring to goes back two decades. More than most people remember these days as you can't seem to get them to remember clearly what one politician or another did just four years ago, let alone two decades..

Not to say that things like Deathwing and Ravenwing.. or Full Black Rage.. etc were not a thing. They were "very special" and not always effective. They didn't throw special rules around like candy so all the basic units and armies could fight on a more simple playingfield without the insanity we deal with today. It wasn't boring then, it isn't now... but being able to bend the rules till the scream to get at 2+/3++/2+FNP and similar just wasn't something you ran into at every tournament... esp since most of those are "special characters" which until about.. what a decade ago?.. were outright banned from official tournament use.

+1, the very core of the game was meant to be played with 30 infantry models and 1-2 tanks

and those rules are still the same, let us play Apocalypse sized armies with Skirmish sized rules

 meatybtz wrote:

They should not PRICE their own market out of itself. It's stupid. But then again corps seem to be struck by a mass stupidity in this era.

As for the balance argument....

I challenge you. Next game here is your army list:
2 FULL Troops Choices.- infantry only allowed (AKA no scatpacks or bikes as troops or elites as troops, etc or other nonsense). You may add a transport for them.
1 Heavy Support (full size or otherwise)
1 Elite
1 Fast Attack (for you eldar players here is where your scatpacks go, they never belonged in troops).
2 HQ. -no named characters-

Now take ANY army from any current codex and give it a go and tell me how it plays out. What I presented is considered the "Classical" GW army. This design goes back to RT days (before we actually had the type designations). I am willing to be every single army will be balanced no matter what you put in those slots from the choices available for that slot. You need to play about 10 games to get a feel, but give it a go. Classic GW. No points needed. Fill those slots as you see fit according to the codex. I don't think GW balances at all outside of that model.

I like everything that you are saying here.

But I also like the wysiwyg points granularity.
I mean, a close game between 1250 and 1400
means a few more lascannons next time.

I got some new cases.
Battlefoam summer sale.

I think that I will split all of my armies
into sections as you describe above,
roughly 1250pts each.

The most fun i had sofar in 8th is around 1000pts.
Big enough to field substantial units if you want. Small enough to not get ludicrous out of hand.
Fast enough to get 1-2 games in.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 meatybtz wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

It does indeed seem to be a sort of Whaling. I just don't think its a good long term strategy. I am still haunted perhaps by watching the model train industry implode since that is what I was into before wargamming.

It isn't, it's a bubble chasing based concept.
And me personally they have mostly priced out.

Which is horrible. They should not be pricing people out of the market. It's insanity. The 230 buck eldar box set is an example. What a freaking bubble. Cost per unit in production has come way down. Use of 3D and digital sculpting tools has decreased development time for models to less than a quarter of what it used to both cost and in time.

So the only costs that are really rising these days are TAXES and LABOR. The newer production method is extremely labor saving. So why the price hikes? It's called a near monopoly. there is GW and then everything else. Nothing else comes close to the scale and size of GWs market share.

They should not PRICE their own market out of itself. It's stupid. But then again corps seem to be struck by a mass stupidity in this era.

As for the balance argument....

I challenge you. Next game here is your army list:
2 FULL Troops Choices.- infantry only allowed (AKA no scatpacks or bikes as troops or elites as troops, etc or other nonsense). You may add a transport for them.
1 Heavy Support (full size or otherwise)
1 Elite
1 Fast Attack (for you eldar players here is where your scatpacks go, they never belonged in troops).
2 HQ. -no named characters-

Now take ANY army from any current codex and give it a go and tell me how it plays out. What I presented is considered the "Classical" GW army. This design goes back to RT days (before we actually had the type designations). I am willing to be every single army will be balanced no matter what you put in those slots from the choices available for that slot. You need to play about 10 games to get a feel, but give it a go. Classic GW. No points needed. Fill those slots as you see fit according to the codex. I don't think GW balances at all outside of that model.

Generally the above can be modified as follows and should still be fun to play:
2 or 3 heavy support choices, but one or no (2or3 depending) elites or fast attack (This will be a punch army not a mobility one)
2 or 3 Elites (same as above)- Elite Army
2 or 3 Fast Attack (same as above)- Mobility Army

Doesn't work for my army rules wise atm.
could't work for them.
Unless you believe that militia is fairly priced. Or R&H cultists or mutants. which they are not. Especially not compared to guard units.

Not Online!!! wrote:
The most fun i had sofar in 8th is around 1000pts.
Big enough to field substantial units if you want. Small enough to not get ludicrous out of hand.
Fast enough to get 1-2 games in.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 meatybtz wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

It does indeed seem to be a sort of Whaling. I just don't think its a good long term strategy. I am still haunted perhaps by watching the model train industry implode since that is what I was into before wargamming.

It isn't, it's a bubble chasing based concept.
And me personally they have mostly priced out.

Which is horrible. They should not be pricing people out of the market. It's insanity. The 230 buck eldar box set is an example. What a freaking bubble. Cost per unit in production has come way down. Use of 3D and digital sculpting tools has decreased development time for models to less than a quarter of what it used to both cost and in time.

So the only costs that are really rising these days are TAXES and LABOR. The newer production method is extremely labor saving. So why the price hikes? It's called a near monopoly. there is GW and then everything else. Nothing else comes close to the scale and size of GWs market share.

They should not PRICE their own market out of itself. It's stupid. But then again corps seem to be struck by a mass stupidity in this era.

As for the balance argument....

I challenge you. Next game here is your army list:
2 FULL Troops Choices.- infantry only allowed (AKA no scatpacks or bikes as troops or elites as troops, etc or other nonsense). You may add a transport for them.
1 Heavy Support (full size or otherwise)
1 Elite
1 Fast Attack (for you eldar players here is where your scatpacks go, they never belonged in troops).
2 HQ. -no named characters-

Now take ANY army from any current codex and give it a go and tell me how it plays out. What I presented is considered the "Classical" GW army. This design goes back to RT days (before we actually had the type designations). I am willing to be every single army will be balanced no matter what you put in those slots from the choices available for that slot. You need to play about 10 games to get a feel, but give it a go. Classic GW. No points needed. Fill those slots as you see fit according to the codex. I don't think GW balances at all outside of that model.

Generally the above can be modified as follows and should still be fun to play:
2 or 3 heavy support choices, but one or no (2or3 depending) elites or fast attack (This will be a punch army not a mobility one)
2 or 3 Elites (same as above)- Elite Army
2 or 3 Fast Attack (same as above)- Mobility Army

Doesn't work for my army rules wise atm.
could't work for them.
Unless you believe that militia is fairly priced. Or R&H cultists or mutants. which they are not. Especially not compared to guard units.

Yeah, that's kind of the problem with the switch from the 6th Ed platoons for guard. Is try the above with the 6th Ed platoons structure as that would fit much better because two troop choices for guard would mean two platoons and two full platoons is quite a thing kitted out.

For folks who to juggle points if my memory serves me.. 1250 should be right.

 meatybtz wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

It does indeed seem to be a sort of Whaling. I just don't think its a good long term strategy. I am still haunted perhaps by watching the model train industry implode since that is what I was into before wargamming.

It isn't, it's a bubble chasing based concept.
And me personally they have mostly priced out.

Which is horrible. They should not be pricing people out of the market. It's insanity. The 230 buck eldar box set is an example. What a freaking bubble. Cost per unit in production has come way down. Use of 3D and digital sculpting tools has decreased development time for models to less than a quarter of what it used to both cost and in time.

So the only costs that are really rising these days are TAXES and LABOR. The newer production method is extremely labor saving. So why the price hikes? It's called a near monopoly. there is GW and then everything else. Nothing else comes close to the scale and size of GWs market share.

They should not PRICE their own market out of itself. It's stupid. But then again corps seem to be struck by a mass stupidity in this era.

The contents and pricing of the box turned the whole thing into a giant fizzle. I'm not even sure if I want to buy the book either. Between battlescribe and alternate means, there's other ways to get rules and I don't feel like rewarding their behavior.

As for the balance argument....

I challenge you. Next game here is your army list:
2 FULL Troops Choices.- infantry only allowed (AKA no scatpacks or bikes as troops or elites as troops, etc or other nonsense). You may add a transport for them.
1 Heavy Support (full size or otherwise)
1 Elite
1 Fast Attack (for you eldar players here is where your scatpacks go, they never belonged in troops).
2 HQ. -no named characters-

Now take ANY army from any current codex and give it a go and tell me how it plays out. What I presented is considered the "Classical" GW army. This design goes back to RT days (before we actually had the type designations). I am willing to be every single army will be balanced no matter what you put in those slots from the choices available for that slot. You need to play about 10 games to get a feel, but give it a go. Classic GW. No points needed. Fill those slots as you see fit according to the codex. I don't think GW balances at all outside of that model.

Generally the above can be modified as follows and should still be fun to play:
2 or 3 heavy support choices, but one or no (2or3 depending) elites or fast attack (This will be a punch army not a mobility one)
2 or 3 Elites (same as above)- Elite Army
2 or 3 Fast Attack (same as above)- Mobility Army

This format just no longer works with the game though. Compared to earlier editions there's so many other entries in elites, fast attack or heavy that need to be sold. And people would be unhappy if they couldn't field their 5 different variants of Fatmarine

GW also shouldn't have filed down the troops choices to almost nothing. Orks in 3rd-4th had like Burnas, tankbustas, and stikkbombs for troops. Now they've got grots and boyz. And that's it.

I agree troops should be an integral part of an army rather than a afterthought for command points. But they've got to fix the entire design to do that.

Dumb Smart Guy wrote:

 meatybtz wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

It does indeed seem to be a sort of Whaling. I just don't think its a good long term strategy. I am still haunted perhaps by watching the model train industry implode since that is what I was into before wargamming.

It isn't, it's a bubble chasing based concept.
And me personally they have mostly priced out.

Which is horrible. They should not be pricing people out of the market. It's insanity. The 230 buck eldar box set is an example. What a freaking bubble. Cost per unit in production has come way down. Use of 3D and digital sculpting tools has decreased development time for models to less than a quarter of what it used to both cost and in time.

So the only costs that are really rising these days are TAXES and LABOR. The newer production method is extremely labor saving. So why the price hikes? It's called a near monopoly. there is GW and then everything else. Nothing else comes close to the scale and size of GWs market share.

They should not PRICE their own market out of itself. It's stupid. But then again corps seem to be struck by a mass stupidity in this era.

The contents and pricing of the box turned the whole thing into a giant fizzle. I'm not even sure if I want to buy the book either. Between battlescribe and alternate means, there's other ways to get rules and I don't feel like rewarding their behavior.

As for the balance argument....

I challenge you. Next game here is your army list:
2 FULL Troops Choices.- infantry only allowed (AKA no scatpacks or bikes as troops or elites as troops, etc or other nonsense). You may add a transport for them.
1 Heavy Support (full size or otherwise)
1 Elite
1 Fast Attack (for you eldar players here is where your scatpacks go, they never belonged in troops).
2 HQ. -no named characters-

Now take ANY army from any current codex and give it a go and tell me how it plays out. What I presented is considered the "Classical" GW army. This design goes back to RT days (before we actually had the type designations). I am willing to be every single army will be balanced no matter what you put in those slots from the choices available for that slot. You need to play about 10 games to get a feel, but give it a go. Classic GW. No points needed. Fill those slots as you see fit according to the codex. I don't think GW balances at all outside of that model.

Generally the above can be modified as follows and should still be fun to play:
2 or 3 heavy support choices, but one or no (2or3 depending) elites or fast attack (This will be a punch army not a mobility one)
2 or 3 Elites (same as above)- Elite Army
2 or 3 Fast Attack (same as above)- Mobility Army

This format just no longer works with the game though. Compared to earlier editions there's so many other entries in elites, fast attack or heavy that need to be sold. And people would be unhappy if they couldn't field their 5 different variants of Fatmarine

GW also shouldn't have filed down the troops choices to almost nothing. Orks in 3rd-4th had like Burnas, tankbustas, and stikkbombs for troops. Now they've got grots and boyz. And that's it.

I agree troops should be an integral part of an army rather than a afterthought for command points. But they've got to fix the entire design to do that.

Aye, that they do.. that they do.

Bah. I've never met anyone who played that way.
The RT army lists certainly weren't set up that way, and the sample armies that GW guys built in the books certainly weren't built that way.

From 'Ere We Go, 1991 wrote:
Waa-Bogrot, sample Blood Axe Warband by Robin Dews

Warboss and 5 Retinue Nobs, 1 Mekboy, 1 Painboy, 1 Runtherd, 1 Human Advisor (champion profile)

Big Mob- 10 boys, heavy plasma gun, missile laucnher
4 Boys mobz of 5 models each, 2 have a missile launcher, 2 have a heavy bolter

Nobz Mob, 4 Nobz, no extra equipment.

Human Mercenaries- Captain and 9 'adventurers' mix of bolters and autoguns

Ogryn Mob- 8 Ogryns, Rippers

Vehicles
Wartrak with Heavy plasma
Imperial Predator, autocannon, 2 lascannons
Thudd Gun

Freebooterz Mob, Kaptin, 10 boyz, 1 with lascannon

Mekboyz: 2 meks, 2 robots: Konkeror and Kastellan

Quite a lot of MSU, more than a few vehicles, no real 'fast attack' (maybe the wartrak, but he describes using it as a gunboat, after it tows the Thudd gun into place), quite a bit of 'heavy support'

from Freebooterz, also 1991 wrote:
Waa-Skumrot, Sample Evil Sunz Warband, Simon Forrest
Warboss and Retinue- Boss, 5 Nobs, 2 meks, 1 painboy, 1 runtherd, all on Nobz Bikes.

Additional Mekboy on foot with Multimelta

Big Mob- 10 boyz, lascannon, heavy bolter
Boyz Mob- 5 boyz, missile launcher

Bad Moonz Boyz mob, 5 boys with missile launcher and heavy bolter
[he notes that he's taking this specifically so he can field 2 heavy weapons on five boys, and also unlock the option to take a weirdboy]

Bad Moon Weirdboy, and 2 minderss

Bike Mob: nob and 5 boys on bikes

Oddbitz:
warbuggy- heavy plasma
wartrak- lascannon
wratrak- lascannon
Hop-Splat field gun

Mek with Shokk Attack Gun
6 snotling bases
also controls 'Katafrakt' robot

10 Madboyz to squeeze out the last 60 points.

So, intentionally piling on vehicles and even specifically pulling an MSU trick to have more heavy weapons.

Its interesting when the designers/writers provide commentary for their decisions.



Lastly, the Black Legion army list out of Realm of Chaos Slaves to Darkness, just basic unit construction and mandates

Slaves to Darkness, 1988 wrote:
Black Legion
0-1 Lieutenant Commander
0-1 Captain
0-1 Lieutenant
[one the most senior of these is the detachment commander, and notable all come with options for the champion, minor hero and major hero profile. The highest ranking isn't necessarily the best profile, it depends what you pay for. You could have a 1 wound champion captain and 3 wound major hero lieutenant, costing 20 and 96 points respectively]

0-4 Medics
0-3 Chaplains
0-6 Librarians
0-5d6 Techmarines (yes, somewhere between 5-30 techmarines as the max)

You can field _a lot_ of characters in RT lists. 20-30 easily.

Daemonic stuff:
0-d6 Possessees (these are fun. Average the profile of the marine and the daemon. Usually random tables or paying specific points. Good luck)
0-1 Summoned Greater Daemon
0-2 (d6-4) Summoned Daemon Princes, yes when making your list, you could end up not able to take DPs.
0-3 (d6-3) Summoned Lesser Daemons, different squads can have different patrons.

0-10 Tactical Squads. Also they can be mounted on chaos steeds
0-3 Assault Squads
0-3 Devastator Squads
all 10 man, but there is zero requirement to take tacticals at all. If you want 30 devastators and nothing else, you can totally do that.
Or you can have no chaos marine squads at all

Any number of beastmen slave squads (10 models), each must be controlled by a techmarine.

0-4 (d6-2) Chaos Spawn, require a techmarine, random stats.

Chaos Renegades Randomly generated warbands. Fun times. A champion and whatever followers they end up with on the charts.

Shared table of support guns, vehicles, dreadnoughts and robots (Shared with world eaters, emperor's children and grey knights). Roughly what you expect (include bikes) plus jet cycles, land speeders and grav attack vehicles (yes, this is the infamous deodorant bottle grav vehicle. It had a profile)

Each requires a techmarine.

So if you wanted a Captain, 10 techmarines and an armored column of Land Raiders and Dreads, you could do that.

If you were lucky, you could plop a bunch of demons on the table.

If you wanted to go crazy, you could take a bunch of renegade warbands and just deal with whatever the tables brought you.

But 2 tactical squads, an assault squad and a devastator squad wasn't even vaguely required.

And what was provided in the books was all we really had to go on at the time. There were no netlists, no consensus, just what you brought to the table as long as it fit broadly into the army list outline, which was a LOT looser than it is now.

This is a way that not showing all the info can make it possible to make any point you want. Yes the black legion list states that you can have 10 land raiders like you said. But look at the cost. 750 points a land raider. You are nit taking 10. In fact to take one was a sacrifice points wise. In fact you could only take D6-3 land raiders so you might not get any.

Also the sample lists in the ORK books nearly all talk about taking a good core of troops.

What I liked best about those lists with reasons for taking what they did is the range of reasons they gave. Narrative p, rule of cool and tactics. Exactly how the game should be played, no min maxing units or spamming. Andy chambers even took some evil SUNZ in his goff army to add colour to it. Love it.

Andykp wrote:
This is a way that not showing all the info can make it possible to make any point you want. Yes the black legion list states that you can have 10 land raiders like you said. But look at the cost. 750 points a land raider. You are nit taking 10. In fact to take one was a sacrifice points wise. In fact you could only take D6-3 land raiders so you might not get any.

yep, That was an oversight on my part when I tacked on the vehicle bits at 1 in the morning. It doesn't invalidate my point that 1 character, 2 'full' Troops, etc. wasn't the assumed norm. There was no assumed norm. Even the developer's armies wandered all over the place according to their whims.

Also the sample lists in the ORK books nearly all talk about taking a good core of troops.

And then proceed to not actually do that. As shown they mostly MSU the heck out of the boyz, aside from the big mob which is required to be at least 10 models, or they spend leftover points on them, like the madboyz in the evil sunz list, after they've squeeze all they can out of the good stuff.

What I liked best about those lists with reasons for taking what they did is the range of reasons they gave. Narrative p, rule of cool and tactics. Exactly how the game should be played, no min maxing units or spamming. Andy chambers even took some evil SUNZ in his goff army to add colour to it. Love it.

Which is great. But they certainly aren't building armies according to an assumed 'classic' formula.

I think the assumed classic list is based on nostalgia and the white dwarf battle reports where that was kind of the format. But in the 1st edition era the armies and lists were more about building a story than just squeezing the most out of the good stuff. The ORK one especially each thing was chosen for a number of reasons and was storied into the lists too.

A.T. wrote:

 Suzuteo wrote:
As for the rest, if GW is more interested in money than competitive balance, why don't people do something about it? Take the Index and build a house meta around it. Launch a revolution to seize the means of design. Lol.

It has recently come to our attention that much of the information hosted on your website (the "Website"), provides us with cause for concern as it conflicts with our intellectual property rights. Although we are confident that the Website is a well-intentioned resource, we are acutely aware of the need to assert our intellectual property rights.

As you may appreciate, GW has a strict policy of protecting all of its intellectual property rights. To this end, we must insist that these materials are removed from the Website.

Hasn't stopped 9th ed from doing superior FB. Change names etc and good to go. Mechanics can't be protected. And as it is model wise you can make "not space marines" with no issues.

If players wanted they could create own 40k system no problem.

40K is only as big as it is because of the Network Effect. Make your own system and you need to build your own network, and that is gonna be an uphill struggle.

My suggestion is trying to build a group of likeminded players and then forget about the wider "scene".

The way that 40k was grown, demo-game by demo-game, store-by-store and so on is often under-estimated by people planning on building a better game.