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.

Isn't the solution very simple? Just restrict all CPs and stratagems to their own detachments only, *unless* the detachments share same book *and* subfaction. There, no more CP farms, you can bring soup if you want, but single book will have advantage of more CP flexibility, while the relaxed army construction is kept for fluffy players...

Hmm. Thats not how I have seen it works. 90% of the tournaments and games out there use the GW recomendation of max 3 detachments in 2.000 point games. And yeah, you can have any number of units in the roles you want. I'm not a fan of spammy list, but I fail to see how having an army full of elites, or an army full of Fast Attacks, when the units in the game are balanced and troops have actually a place and role instead of being a tax (Tax, I hate paying it in real life and I hate paying it in warhammer. I want for all my units to have a role, not to be a tax for using a unit I actually want), is actually detrimental to the game.

Starcraft doesn't force you to build 10 zerglings for every Ultralisk you want to take. The system, being balanced, makes you want to take a good mix of units to respond to the opponent strategy. Of course in Warhammer we lack the hability to swap units mid game, but thats why TAC lists should be encouraged. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to take spammy list. They have his right and some spammy list can be totally cool and fine. The problem is when the spam is of a unbalanced unit. But the problem is not spamming per se. In a balanced enviroment, spamming will always be worse than a TAC list, unless you are spamming agaisnt a opponent that is spamming too, and you have spammed his counter. But thats a valid strategy and gambit that anybody should be able to make. How can you say that a more restrictive system that doesn't actually makes people chose what to bring but forces them to bring some things that they don't actually want because the FOC doesn't allow for more flexibility, is more strategic than a system that allows for a much bigger array of different armies and tactics?

Whats the problem with all bikers armies, or all tanks and artillery Imperial Guard Regiments, or a force of only Elite Space Marines? Veterans, with Terminators, Dreadnoughts, etc...? If the game is balanced those list have all his tactical weakness and strenghts. You don't need a system as restrictive as the old 5th FOC to have a functional game.

I literally acknowledged that the new system being better or worse was up to individual preference. But having a stricter system that forces someone to actually decide what they want to bring does make it more strategic compared to a system where you can literally take any number of any type of unit you want with unlimited detachments. You may not place value on that, but I do.

You currently have tons of restrictions. For each detachment you are binding yourself to certain units and these units cost points and you do not have an endless upply of points. All these restrictions still apply. I just feel like you are complaining about fringe cases like several Baneblades or 3 Wraith Knights in an army.

I'd also argue that more restrictions make things less strategic. The more options you have to choose from the more combinations you have compared to a restricted system where you are forced to stick to core units that limit both your choices and decisions. Would be fun to calculate the possible permutations between different editions.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I remember when people played a more restrictive codexes/games. Those were indeed the glory days. One could spam Wave Serpents, Scatter Bikes, Flying Croissants, and Wraiths to name a few. Ye olde days of Starcannons, how I miss thee.

I guess you are talking about 6th and/or 7th editions. I was not playing nor following the GW's things back then, but more and more i have the impression that GW destroyed 40k back then and we have now is a extinguished fire smoking and trying to gather the scattered pieces of it... Makes me sad.

 Eldarsif wrote:

The FOC kept things simple, and you could just spam that single OP unit as much as you wanted. These were the good old days where everyone was happy, full of joy, and just itching to have their units mowed down by whatever thing was in fashion.

Why can't we have nice things? Why can't we have a single FOC detachment games where we could easily just forfeit a game because we knew the bastard in front of us was wielding the flavor of the month that nothing could stand against? It gave us more time to paint!

This single faction spam also kept the flavor god damn flavorful! Everyone knows Necrons are just a bunch of flying Croissants and that Craftworlds are just their serpents and scatter lasers. The flavor, the lore, the history, was so rich with this beautiful setup. It was indeed the best timeline.

I have no idea what you are talking about as i said before.

That things were worse in the end of 5th/6th/7th, does not mean that they automatically are good right now because we are comparing with those disasters. Back in 3rd edition one of the most powerful list if i'm not mistaken was the Iron Warriors. That list was awful back then and a shot in the foot of the game, the fluff, etc... today, that list would be considered "fluffy" compared to the abominations we can see everywhere. That is the thing. That is just... It means that the game has go from bad to worse and worse and worse. And right now that the game is "different" from its recent incarnations, people is very happy not because 40k is a good game or it is balanced or it is a good representation of the fluff (which is not), but because its slightly better than the train wreck that were previous editions.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Although you might disagree with it, the point is to have fun.

Lol... What? Do you mean you cannot have fun if the game is balanced and restricted and have some proper rules and good game designing behind it? I'm sorry, but i fail to see how that is possible or how can it make any sense...

My point is that the game need a LOT more restrictions and guidance to make it more balanced, more fun and more accurate to its background. It is supposedly the point isn't it? To have fun REPRESENTING a battle or skirmish in the 40k universe. Right now in many games neither of those things are fulfilled... To simply have fun there are many many games much more fun and rewarding to play. If you want to play 40k is that you like in some degree the background and story of the 40k universe, because as i said before, there are many companies out there that makes much better games and much better miniatures. No?

Why people thinks that more restrictions = not fun game? I don't get it.
The game as has been a lot of editions and specially in this 8th, is not a tactical wargame or strategical wargame. Games are won or losed at the choosing army and making the list stages. How is it that possible?

In real wargames or the actual reality, you are a better tactician and better military leader if you can defeat the enemy with the scarce resources you have. Alexander the Great was a great general because he managed to defeat army after army of the Persian Empire that were larger than his army. Or Rommel, with very few resources in north africa... Or Julius Caesar conquering Gallia with a handful of men... Etc, etc.

In chess, the archeotypical wargame, both players have exactly the same resources, the movements of each piece is fixed, the "abilities" of each piece are fixed and known by each player... so in the end the better player is the one who usually wins.

In 40k as it is right now, it would be as if Rommel could have had a full army of king tigers and fallschirmjäger, or Alexander would had a full army of elite heavy infantry and cavalry... or better example as if in chess one player would have a full army of queens.
What's the point in those cases? Is it really "fun"? Or the enjoyment is only in one side of the table? In chess if i have a proper army and the other player have a full army of queens, it will not be very funny nor very fair, and it would kill the point of the game.
In 40k is exactly the same or worse. 40k is not a game made for competing or proving which one wins. The point of the game is that BOTH players have to have fun and the game should be a somewhat similar representation of one encounter in the 40k universe. So, if players cannot or are not able to do it (as it is repeatedly proved), the rules should be the founding layer to make it happens. As they are now, they simply fail loudly and miserably.

I really cannot believe that anyone can have fun playing against some (most!) of the lists that i saw in the "army list" subforum. To me it would be painful. They are the exactly literal same thing as the "Army of queens" for Chess... So better rules for 40k is not a crazy things to have. As i said by the examples, the games have to have restrictions and rules and balance to be fair, fun and that in the end, the better player could won. In 40k this is not the case. Is not the better player who wins, but the more unscrupulous one and the one who has more luck with dice.

So yes, the FOC would be a good starting point. It would need changes. It would need a proper balanced game as a foundation, and proper and balanced codexes using it. To address your concerns about units spamming and abusive units, the game should really be reduced in scale. Less models and higher point cost per model would make relatively easier to balance the units and make more difficult to spam the best ones. As well, it would be absolutely necessary to bring back the units restrictions, that is the 0-1, 0-2, "only one of this units in your army", that would serve as a method to restrict too powerful units. For example, back in 3-4th editions, obliterators were 0-1. That would end a lot of problems that powerful and unbalanced units could make, as well as allowing the players that really like the background and/or the models for that units to use them.

Internal balance in the units should be as well a measure to take to improve balance. For example, to avoid the spamming of 5 chaos sm or 5 tactical marines with plasma and lascannon so predominant in the 3rd edition, i would make the units entries much more restrictives and detailed, for example, in the tactical marines entry it should be a list of the combination of units allowed for that army (i don't know right now how, but it could be that for every identical squad, you pay double the points for the special and heavy weapons, or that you have to have a full squad after the first one to have a special weapon, etc...).

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter all what we discuss and argue here. It is a matter of GW being incompentent and unable to make a balanced game... Or worse, making it purposely unbalanced to sell more and more models. I'm starting to think that it is the latter, and that means that we will never have a good 40k game.

In real wargames or the actual reality, you are a better tactician and better military leader if you can defeat the enemy with the scarce resources you have. Alexander the Great was a great general because he managed to defeat army after army of the Persian Empire that were larger than his army. Or Rommel, with very few resources in north africa... Or Julius Caesar conquering Gallia with a handful of men... Etc, etc.

Except as you've noticed in real life you can have armies of varying discrepancy. Sometimes small armies of infantry will be facing an entire tank division for example.

Internal balance in the units should be as well a measure to take to improve balance. For example, to avoid the spamming of 5 chaos sm or 5 tactical marines with plasma and lascannon so predominant in the 3rd edition, i would make the units entries much more restrictives and detailed, for example, in the tactical marines entry it should be a list of the combination of units allowed for that army (i don't know right now how, but it could be that for every identical squad, you pay double the points for the special and heavy weapons, or that you have to have a full squad after the first one to have a special weapon, etc...).

I am honestly glad you aren't balancing, as you'd ruin my Slaanesh armies outright.

Lol... What? Do you mean you cannot have fun if the game is balanced and restricted and have some proper rules and good game designing behind it? I'm sorry, but i fail to see how that is possible or how can it make any sense...

My point is that the game need a LOT more restrictions and guidance to make it more balanced, more fun and more accurate to its background.

Where did I say anything I was against balance? I am against unnecessary restrictions, but balance I am all for. Please read my text before auto-replying.

My argument is that restrictions don't necesarily have anything to do with fun. The rules are fun, unless you want to imply that you don't play the rules. You are arguing that the game can't be balanced in the current state and you have no argument for that reasoning. Is it easier to balance more restricted games? Sure, just as it is easier to make a railshooter than an open-world game. The game would be super easy to balance if we just had Troop Units and HQ and nothing else. Just keep the game with bolter-only Tac Marines and a Bolter wielding Captain and you have the easiest game to balance ever. Doesn't automatically equate to fun even if you might love it that way.

There lies the problem. You have created an artificial goalpost where the game is best/most fun, and ultimately that's just your gut feeling. Hell, your idea of fun is a subjective personal opinion. Nothing wrong with that subjective personal opinion, but what you consider fun others might not find fun.

In regards to accurate background: What is your idea of accurate background? Again, you are creating an artificial goalpost where your goalpost is the right one.

As a personal opinion I am glad that the game is evolving and changing.

there are many companies out there that makes much better games and much better miniatures.

To quote the Dude: That's just like, your opinion, man. I personally love the models and many of the aesthetics that they offer. I also find 8th edition to be a refreshing change in an otherwise stale game. Revitalized my interest in 40k completely. Again, your idea of better games and better miniatures are subjective personal opinions.

Games are won or losed at the choosing army and making the list stages.

This has been a thing in every single edition of 40k(well, I can't speak for Rogue Trader since I started in 2nd edition).

In real wargames or the actual reality, you are a better tactician and better military leader if you can defeat the enemy with the scarce resources you have. Alexander the Great was a great general because he managed to defeat army after army of the Persian Empire that were larger than his army. Or Rommel, with very few resources in north africa... Or Julius Caesar conquering Gallia with a handful of men... Etc, etc.

Now I am not sure how you play Warhammer 40k, but we do use points and those are as you call it a "scarce" resource. Even then the slots are technically scarce as you can only do x amount of permutations with each detachment and those choices cost points. Also, this is a game and trying to impose realism on it(especially one that happens in the year 40.000) is kinda silly. I mean, if you want to play a long ass campaign where you go through pre-made war zones and have to refuel, rearm, and whatnot, by all means do that. There is nothing stopping you from doing just that.

It also feels like you'd be happier in Flames of War or something similar. Considering the background of the 40k and the evolution of the ruleset over the decades you must realize that this game will never provide what you seem to desiring.

In chess, the archeotypical wargame, both players have exactly the same resources, the movements of each piece is fixed, the "abilities" of each piece are fixed and known by each player... so in the end the better player is the one who usually wins.

Now, I am not sure you realize, but you kinda are arguing against your own point. Chess not only has the same resources, but both players have exactly the same units and their abilities are highly restricted. Do you want everyone to play exactly the same army as you? I mean, if you ask someone politely they might very well do that for you. Maybe Horus Heresy would be a good middle ground for what you want out of the game?

better example as if in chess one player would have a full army of queens. it will not be very funny nor very fair, and it would kill the point of the game.

Please do not try to continue making a comparison between chess and Warhammer 40k. These are entirely different beasts and comparing them is downright silly. Chess does not have terrain or varying point costs and last time I checked I can't buy an unassembled and unpainted Queen at my wargaming store.

I'd argue it would be kinda funny, but only for a short while. Regarding fair I assume the opponent would be allowed to have an army of only Queens themselves so it would be fair so your reasoning is flawed.

I am going to post two quotes where you are arguing against yourself:

In real wargames or the actual reality, you are a better tactician and better military leader if you can defeat the enemy with the scarce resources you have.

and

40k is not a game made for competing or proving which one wins.

Now to the next point.

The point of the game is that BOTH players have to have fun and the game should be a somewhat similar representation of one encounter in the 40k universe.

I am having fun playing 40k even when I am playing armies that haven't had a codex. Even when I lose I am having fun because I find it a fun game. If you are not having fun then maybe, just maybe, 40k is not a game for you? I do not mean any disrespect, but seeing how you have done nothing but complain about every single aspect of the game currently it feels like it's just not your cup of tea. I mean, I tried Warmahordes and had a lot of issues with it so I just stopped playing it. Do enjoy painting the Warmahordes models so I still have those around.

As they are now, they simply fail loudly and miserably.

To quote the Dude again: Well that's just like your opinion man. I personally feel they are doing their best job in decades.

I really cannot believe that anyone can have fun playing against some (most!) of the lists that i saw in the "army list" subforum. To me it would be painful.

I have seen many a varied list so I don't see where this is coming from. Again, if this is so painful then maybe 40k is not your type of game.

So better rules for 40k is not a crazy things to have.

Are we arguing for rules or are we arguing for a FoC at this point because it seems you are now arguing for the former. Can the whole ruleset see some modifications? Sure, I'd like to see cover improved a bit myself as I find it too binary right now. I'd also like to see -1 to hit on whole armies disappear personally.

As i said by the examples, the games have to have restrictions and rules and balance to be fair, fun and that in the end, the better player could won. In 40k this is not the case. Is not the better player who wins, but the more unscrupulous one and the one who has more luck with dice.

Seriously, play another game if you are so angry at having to use dices. Your perfect game already exists and you have been writing about it again and again. You want to play chess, got it. If you really want to play 40k Chess then I think it would be a grand idea to paint up some miniatures and use them as a chess pieces. Could be a very cool display piece on its own. Hell, I am tempted to do that myself now that I think about it!

Also, 40k has restrictions and rules, and they seem to be trying for balance(with varying results so far). This is 2/3 in 40ks favor.

So yes, the FOC would be a good starting point. It would need changes. It would need a proper balanced game as a foundation, and proper and balanced codexes using it. To address your concerns about units spamming and abusive units, the game should really be reduced in scale. Less models and higher point cost per model would make relatively easier to balance the units and make more difficult to spam the best ones. As well, it would be absolutely necessary to bring back the units restrictions, that is the 0-1, 0-2, "only one of this units in your army", that would serve as a method to restrict too powerful units. For example, back in 3-4th editions, obliterators were 0-1. That would end a lot of problems that powerful and unbalanced units could make, as well as allowing the players that really like the background and/or the models for that units to use them.

Now it feels like you just want to play 2nd edition Warhammer or even Warmahordes. Have you tried Warmahordes?

Internal balance in the units should be as well a measure to take to improve balance. For example, to avoid the spamming of 5 chaos sm or 5 tactical marines with plasma and lascannon so predominant in the 3rd edition, i would make the units entries much more restrictives and detailed, for example, in the tactical marines entry it should be a list of the combination of units allowed for that army (i don't know right now how, but it could be that for every identical squad, you pay double the points for the special and heavy weapons, or that you have to have a full squad after the first one to have a special weapon, etc...).

Now it feels like you want to play some Excel game. Have you tried EVE Online? Fantastic game. Seriously, with what you want to do with restrictions I see no fun at all. I'll be spending hours trying to go through whatever "if" and "elif" statements you seem to desire into the game. Already get enough of those at my day job. Jesus Murphy, I just want to have a fun game, not a scripting language for army building.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter all what we discuss and argue here. It is a matter of GW being incompentent and unable to make a balanced game...

Warhammer 40.000 is really not your game is it? I mean, that's fine, there are ton of other games on the market. However, I think you'll find yourself miffed very quickly when you realize that many of these games have many of the same issues as Warhammer, and one of the reasons is that these games are expansive. That is, new units and rules are added in yearly which makes the game highly mutable. This makes the games very hard to balance and get right although I find GW be doing a much better job than in the previous editions.

The only game that would satisfy all your needs is chess. Why aren't you playing Chess? This is an honest to god question. Chess has literally everything you want. I would also recommend Go. Go is a fantastic game.

 Warpspy wrote:

Why people thinks that more restrictions = not fun game? I don't get it.

Because I want to be able to play with models I actually like, not forced to bring some specific things dictated by some chart.

Removal of the allies would be one thing that would seriously make me consider quitting the game.

Surely even in a game of chess vs a guy who had nothing but queens, all you would need is a balanced point system to have a fair game. Want to spam queens? 100ppm. Pawns?20ppm. Now have a 500 point game and watch 5 queens try to hold back the tide of 25 pawns.Or, even better, do the same in a 1000 point game

IMO the same concept applies to 40k. Spam only becomes a problem when units are undercosted or if a stratagem/psychic power becomes too exploitable (in my experience).

 Crimson wrote:

 Warpspy wrote:

Why people thinks that more restrictions = not fun game? I don't get it.

Because I want to be able to play with models I actually like, not forced to bring some specific things dictated by some chart.

Removal of the allies would be one thing that would seriously make me consider quitting the game.

Once again that's poor internal balance being the issue, not the soup.

How are all you people still complaining this is the best edition GW has given us in decades. Once all the codexs are released aside from the power creep that's going on this the edition is the tits.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Warpspy wrote:

Why people thinks that more restrictions = not fun game? I don't get it.

Because I want to be able to play with models I actually like, not forced to bring some specific things dictated by some chart.

Removal of the allies would be one thing that would seriously make me consider quitting the game.

Once again that's poor internal balance being the issue, not the soup.

No, he's saying he wants you bring models he likes not models dictated by some tax of a FOC. Substitute internet flowchart for printed flowchart.

And my two cents on this is HECK NO! I like the freedom of the current Detachments, I like the armies it produces and I see and I never, ever, want the old FoC to be mandated again.

Audustum wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Warpspy wrote:

Why people thinks that more restrictions = not fun game? I don't get it.

Because I want to be able to play with models I actually like, not forced to bring some specific things dictated by some chart.

Removal of the allies would be one thing that would seriously make me consider quitting the game.

Once again that's poor internal balance being the issue, not the soup.

No, he's saying he wants you bring models he likes not models dictated by some tax of a FOC. Substitute internet flowchart for printed flowchart.

And my two cents on this is HECK NO! I like the freedom of the current Detachments, I like the armies it produces and I see and I never, ever, want the old FoC to be mandated again.

I was more reinforcing his point, though I probably could've worded the post better to reflect that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Warpspy wrote:

Why people thinks that more restrictions = not fun game? I don't get it.

Because I want to be able to play with models I actually like, not forced to bring some specific things dictated by some chart.

Removal of the allies would be one thing that would seriously make me consider quitting the game.

Once again that's poor internal balance being the issue, not the soup.

No, he's saying he wants you bring models he likes not models dictated by some tax of a FOC. Substitute internet flowchart for printed flowchart.

And my two cents on this is HECK NO! I like the freedom of the current Detachments, I like the armies it produces and I see and I never, ever, want the old FoC to be mandated again.

I was more reinforcing his point, though I probably could've worded the post better to reflect that.

Ah, my bad. Sorry.

First, if you want o bring whatever you want you already can. It's called Open and Narrative Play. Specifically, Open lets you play however you want. That means you can litterally transplant ALL the rules of matched over to open and then change the one thing you don't like to be how you do like. Like letting you bring an Ork detachment with Tyranids because they have the models you like.

Second, a more restrictive list building does improve the game because it forces you to make choices that are interesting. It's like playing classic doom with god mode, infinite guns, and infinite ammo vs regular old doom. Yeah, it's fun once in awhile to go nuts shooting BFGs non stop. But it's actually way more interesting to have to play with the restrictions.

Finally, don't bring back the old FoC. Adopted the 30k FoC.

Their FoC charts are great. Allow <Chapter> <Regiment> <Hive Fleet> keywords to open up some options for which units go into which slots. Like a pure <Ravenwing> detachment could take bikers as troops. Do you make your main FoC ravenwing or an ally? Don't care. The option is neat. Make Jormungandr able to take Raveners are troops. LoWs cannot make up more than 25% of your army and no LoW below 2k points.

A limiting FoC isn't a bad thing especially when it comes with flexibility built into it.

 Lance845 wrote:
First, if you want o bring whatever you want you already can. It's called Open and Narrative Play. Specifically, Open lets you play however you want. That means you can litterally transplant ALL the rules of matched over to open and then change the one thing you don't like to be how you do like. Like letting you bring an Ork detachment with Tyranids because they have the models you like.

Second, a more restrictive list building does improve the game because it forces you to make choices that are interesting. It's like playing classic doom with god mode, infinite guns, and infinite ammo vs regular old doom. Yeah, it's fun once in awhile to go nuts shooting BFGs non stop. But it's actually way more interesting to have to play with the restrictions.

Finally, don't bring back the old FoC. Adopted the 30k FoC.

Their FoC charts are great. Allow <Chapter> <Regiment> <Hive Fleet> keywords to open up some options for which units go into which slots. Like a pure <Ravenwing> detachment could take bikers as troops. Do you make your main FoC ravenwing or an ally? Don't care. The option is neat. Make Jormungandr able to take Raveners are troops. LoWs cannot make up more than 25% of your army and no LoW below 2k points.

A limiting FoC isn't a bad thing especially when it comes with flexibility built into it.

Yeah except Open and Narrative aren't what tournaments use and some of us like to compete. My favorite armies only stand a chance in tournament settings being spam happy (Grey Knights, Custodes, Imperial Knights). A limiting FoC just throws them out the window. Even if you keywords to open up changes you will either not open enough changes or make it so permissive as to wind us up back where we are now in effect. So might as well stay where we are now.

The problems in 8th aren't the FoC's. That's just people who PREFER to see certain unit types being mad other players use different ones. The problems are imbalances of individual units and in pricing, i.e. survivability is priced too highly in infantry, psychic access is overcosted for most units, e.t.c.

Why is people saying that theres no restrictions? Dont you play with points and max 3 detachmentsli ke damm GW recomends at 2000p? How is 8th FOC like Doom god-mode? Thats a strawmen.
I love troops. I always spam troops. I wouldnt force anyone to use them if he or she doesnt want it.
I dont understand how people can critize 8th detachments and then say that HQ should allow X units to become troops. That not only makes troops obsolete, is just a worse version of 8th. You are creating a combukated sistem of exceptions, when the 8th sistem allready allow for those thematic armies to all factions, without making troops obsolete.
In 8th troops have actually a place and tactical role ffs!

I didnt say it was like doom god mode. I used it as an example for how restrictions build more interesting game play.

In 8th you dont need troops at all. The focs literally let you build any list you want with any mix of model you want. The only cost is cp efficiency.

And if units are balanced and have tactical roles instead of some units being just a tax, wats the problem with that? They are limited by points.

 Lance845 wrote:
I didnt say it was like doom god mode. I used it as an example for how restrictions build more interesting game play.

In 8th you dont need troops at all. The focs literally let you build any list you want with any mix of model you want. The only cost is cp efficiency.

The example you use doesn't work though because it isn't like the demons are boosted at all from that. The Demons don't get God mode.

Now if you're on an insanity difficulty, then it becomes interesting to get that much ammo and armor as they swarm upon you.

Galas wrote:And if units are balanced and have tactical roles instead of some units being just a tax, wats the problem with that? They are limited by points.

There isn't.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I didnt say it was like doom god mode. I used it as an example for how restrictions build more interesting game play.

In 8th you dont need troops at all. The focs literally let you build any list you want with any mix of model you want. The only cost is cp efficiency.

The example you use doesn't work though because it isn't like the demons are boosted at all from that. The Demons don't get God mode.

Now if you're on an insanity difficulty, then it becomes interesting to get that much ammo and armor as they swarm upon you.

Your all running away with the analogy instead of hearing the point.

The point is that someone argued that all they want is to bring whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, and that restrictions don't make the game any better.

Wrong.

Restrictions are what creates interesting choice. And interesting choice makes for better game play. In 7th (when I started playing the game) I loved the 2k point level because I could really flesh out my lists. I could bring everything I wanted with all the bells and whistles. I could make my list fully succeed at several different aspects. The longer I played the more I liked 1500-1250. Because I COULDN"T bring all the wargear options I wanted. I had to look for ways to trim fat. I had to scrape off a few models here drop these little perks there and because those bells and whistles were missing I had to compensate more in the game itself.

Restrictions made me have to choose. Those choices made my list building more interesting and in turn made me up my game on the table.

It's not a bad thing to have restrictions. And fully opened unrestrained list building like say.... AoS on release, can be incredibly detrimental.

Maybe I am reading the wrong rulebook, but there are quite explicit rules about army building in regards to points and how detachment are formed. In no way can I build "whatever" list I want. What 8th edition has brought us is more options, but that does not mean in it is unrestricted at all. Options are generally considered good.

A limiting FoC isn't a bad thing especially when it comes with flexibility built into it.

That's what they did. The FoC are limited(there is literally a list of FoCs you can use. They just called it detachments instead). They just built it so that it gives you the flexibility you just mentioned. Also, with how CP are working now it can be quite detrimental to sacrifice CP although I will admit that this only applies to Codex armies and not Index armies.

In the end this always comes down to several points:

1. Some people want a Troop slot heavy game even if this slot is in essence illusory as developers will side step that requirement by having slot switching shenanigans. Only thing the designers did was stop lying to you about specific restrictions and instead be completely honest about them.

2. The main complaint is not about the FoC, but that some units are currently just badly balanced and people will spam them. This is a problem since the game was released decades ago. Limiting the FoC will not mean you are going to see less Dark Reapers because how many people run of them would technically fit into the old FoC. At best it would mean that around 150 points would go into a Troop Tax to run the rest of the stuff. Again, it is an illusion of restriction rather than actual restrictions.

3. The person in question just really wants to play something completely different from 40k.

 Blacksails wrote:

I think the post 5th edition army building paradigm has created more problems than it solved, but the cat's out of the bag. Then again, I also wouldn't complain if flyers and superheavies were removed from standard games of 40k.

So much this! I still think it is strange to see either outside of an apocalypse game.

 Coldhatred wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

I think the post 5th edition army building paradigm has created more problems than it solved, but the cat's out of the bag. Then again, I also wouldn't complain if flyers and superheavies were removed from standard games of 40k.

So much this! I still think it is strange to see either outside of an apocalypse game.

I don't disagree from a fluff standpoint, but those models aren't really tearing up the game like they once did.

I honestly think this was directed to address competitors games, i.e. Warmahordes large scale models, because when they allowed SH starting in 6th it was about that same time. People love their large models, for good reason, but I don't think these are exactly breaking the game anymore.

 Irbis wrote:
Isn't the solution very simple? Just restrict all CPs and stratagems to their own detachments only, *unless* the detachments share same book *and* subfaction. There, no more CP farms, you can bring soup if you want, but single book will have advantage of more CP flexibility, while the relaxed army construction is kept for fluffy players...

I actually really like this. Does anyone have an argument against it?

It doesn't break IGs back if they're the same regiment, but they can be sorted in other ways.

 Lance845 wrote:
First, if you want o bring whatever you want you already can. It's called Open and Narrative Play. Specifically, Open lets you play however you want. That means you can litterally transplant ALL the rules of matched over to open and then change the one thing you don't like to be how you do like. Like letting you bring an Ork detachment with Tyranids because they have the models you like.

And if you want, you can already agree to play matched with just one batallion detachment.

Second, a more restrictive list building does improve the game because it forces you to make choices that are interesting. It's like playing classic doom with god mode, infinite guns, and infinite ammo vs regular old doom. Yeah, it's fun once in awhile to go nuts shooting BFGs non stop. But it's actually way more interesting to have to play with the restrictions.

There are restrictions, just not as much as you'd like. Things cost points, you can't bring everything, and you need to make pure detachments to keep abilities, and most abilities won't work outside the subfaction. The most abusive aspects of allies were killed in the 8th. Allies are fine now. They're a good way to make more diverse armies. If some specific units always get spammed, then it is issue with those units being too good, not with the ally rules themselves.

I get the feeling that some folks are really just upset about "souping" as opposed to the detachments. Running a Vanguard and Outrider detachment of Dark Angels lets you have a Deathwing/Ravenwing force, but it will be short on those vital CPs. I don't see very much salt about multiple detachments. The salt I see about "spam" could just as easily apply to the old FOC.

Putting restrictions on the keyword system is one thing, but going back to the old FOC would be a huge step back in terms.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I get the feeling that some folks are really just upset about "souping" as opposed to the detachments. Running a Vanguard and Outrider detachment of Dark Angels lets you have a Deathwing/Ravenwing force, but it will be short on those vital CPs. I don't see very much salt about multiple detachments. The salt I see about "spam" could just as easily apply to the old FOC.

Putting restrictions on the keyword system is one thing, but going back to the old FOC would be a huge step back in terms.

Sure. It is about killing allies, because some people want everybody to play boring mono faction armies.

Being able to mix different factions in one army is one of the best things about the game.

 Crimson wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I get the feeling that some folks are really just upset about "souping" as opposed to the detachments. Running a Vanguard and Outrider detachment of Dark Angels lets you have a Deathwing/Ravenwing force, but it will be short on those vital CPs. I don't see very much salt about multiple detachments. The salt I see about "spam" could just as easily apply to the old FOC.

Putting restrictions on the keyword system is one thing, but going back to the old FOC would be a huge step back in terms.

Sure. It is about killing allies, because some people want everybody to play boring mono faction armies.

Being able to mix different factions in one army is one of the best things about the game.

Its not the mixing of factions thats the issue.

Its the fact you can take 1 or 2 "power" models from a faction, which then give you access to strategems that you can use on out of faction detachments, and then take 1 or 2 power models from ANOTHER faction to do the same damn thing. Its one thing to take some IG to supplement the firepower from your ultramarines, its another to allow game breaking combos to exist and "soup" things just because.

The thing is you allow people to break the game un-intentionally by utilizing keywords, and keywords themselves are pretty iffy and vague at times. 6th at least straight out told you who could ally with who, though some of the combos were stupid (Necrons and Blood Angels, for example) and not at all fluffy.

The other issue is the game as it is, currently, awards you to soup over mono-faction. Its not that I hate soup, I don't mind seeing allied forces, I mind when people do it for the express purpose of rules abuse. Shouldn't factions that are forced to be mono-faction (Tyranids currently) have a chance? Also it pretty much forces you to try and stack CP to get powerful strategems, rather than build a powerful force for strategems to supplement with one turn buffs, or cool tricks. Why couldn't we, ya know, have these built into specific units or factions instead? For example, Alpha Legion chapters can infiltrate 1 or 2 Non Marked infantry units at the end of their first turn? Instead we have infiltrating alpha legion berzerkers....

We are just in a weird spot with the game, where people want fun and interesting games, but rules that were mean't to be "simple and easy to play" have turned abusive, and rules lawyers have more ammo than ever to do some wonky stuff that shouldn't be legal (like horrors splitting making more poxwalkers...)

 Zid wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I get the feeling that some folks are really just upset about "souping" as opposed to the detachments. Running a Vanguard and Outrider detachment of Dark Angels lets you have a Deathwing/Ravenwing force, but it will be short on those vital CPs. I don't see very much salt about multiple detachments. The salt I see about "spam" could just as easily apply to the old FOC.

Putting restrictions on the keyword system is one thing, but going back to the old FOC would be a huge step back in terms.

Sure. It is about killing allies, because some people want everybody to play boring mono faction armies.

Being able to mix different factions in one army is one of the best things about the game.

Its not the mixing of factions thats the issue.

Its the fact you can take 1 or 2 "power" models from a faction, which then give you access to strategems that you can use on out of faction detachments, and then take 1 or 2 power models from ANOTHER faction to do the same damn thing. Its one thing to take some IG to supplement the firepower from your ultramarines, its another to allow game breaking combos to exist and "soup" things just because.

The thing is you allow people to break the game un-intentionally by utilizing keywords, and keywords themselves are pretty iffy and vague at times. 6th at least straight out told you who could ally with who, though some of the combos were stupid (Necrons and Blood Angels, for example) and not at all fluffy.

The other issue is the game as it is, currently, awards you to soup over mono-faction. Its not that I hate soup, I don't mind seeing allied forces, I mind when people do it for the express purpose of rules abuse. Shouldn't factions that are forced to be mono-faction (Tyranids currently) have a chance? Also it pretty much forces you to try and stack CP to get powerful strategems, rather than build a powerful force for strategems to supplement with one turn buffs, or cool tricks. Why couldn't we, ya know, have these built into specific units or factions instead? For example, Alpha Legion chapters can infiltrate 1 or 2 Non Marked infantry units at the end of their first turn? Instead we have infiltrating alpha legion berzerkers....

We are just in a weird spot with the game, where people want fun and interesting games, but rules that were mean't to be "simple and easy to play" have turned abusive, and rules lawyers have more ammo than ever to do some wonky stuff that shouldn't be legal (like horrors splitting making more poxwalkers...)

For one you can't take 1-2 power unit and unlock stratagems, you need a pure detachment.
Tyranids are not forced mono-faction. They can take GSC who can take IG.

And people keep bringing up souping for stratagems to use on other detachments but where is this happening? Only Ynnari does this. The Daemon stuff got Faq'ed.

Ordana wrote:

 Zid wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I get the feeling that some folks are really just upset about "souping" as opposed to the detachments. Running a Vanguard and Outrider detachment of Dark Angels lets you have a Deathwing/Ravenwing force, but it will be short on those vital CPs. I don't see very much salt about multiple detachments. The salt I see about "spam" could just as easily apply to the old FOC.

Putting restrictions on the keyword system is one thing, but going back to the old FOC would be a huge step back in terms.

Sure. It is about killing allies, because some people want everybody to play boring mono faction armies.

Being able to mix different factions in one army is one of the best things about the game.

Its not the mixing of factions thats the issue.

Its the fact you can take 1 or 2 "power" models from a faction, which then give you access to strategems that you can use on out of faction detachments, and then take 1 or 2 power models from ANOTHER faction to do the same damn thing. Its one thing to take some IG to supplement the firepower from your ultramarines, its another to allow game breaking combos to exist and "soup" things just because.

The thing is you allow people to break the game un-intentionally by utilizing keywords, and keywords themselves are pretty iffy and vague at times. 6th at least straight out told you who could ally with who, though some of the combos were stupid (Necrons and Blood Angels, for example) and not at all fluffy.

The other issue is the game as it is, currently, awards you to soup over mono-faction. Its not that I hate soup, I don't mind seeing allied forces, I mind when people do it for the express purpose of rules abuse. Shouldn't factions that are forced to be mono-faction (Tyranids currently) have a chance? Also it pretty much forces you to try and stack CP to get powerful strategems, rather than build a powerful force for strategems to supplement with one turn buffs, or cool tricks. Why couldn't we, ya know, have these built into specific units or factions instead? For example, Alpha Legion chapters can infiltrate 1 or 2 Non Marked infantry units at the end of their first turn? Instead we have infiltrating alpha legion berzerkers....

We are just in a weird spot with the game, where people want fun and interesting games, but rules that were mean't to be "simple and easy to play" have turned abusive, and rules lawyers have more ammo than ever to do some wonky stuff that shouldn't be legal (like horrors splitting making more poxwalkers...)

For one you can't take 1-2 power unit and unlock stratagems, you need a pure detachment.
Tyranids are not forced mono-faction. They can take GSC who can take IG.

And people keep bringing up souping for stratagems to use on other detachments but where is this happening? Only Ynnari does this. The Daemon stuff got Faq'ed.

Yes, a cheap HQ + troop, etc.Its mainly abused by innari, but chaos was guilty of it too. Yes, the Demon one got FAQ'd, but for example, I can use the strategem to change one sorcerers spell to any spell and give Mortarion Warptime, for example.

GSC doesn't really compliment Tyranids, which is why you probably don't see it, they are more powerful as a mono-faction; but looking at ITC standings, only one army that was Mono ( a blood angels army) even made it to the top 8. People defend soup because they want to run IG with their marines, or whatever, and thats cool, that makes the game fun. But you can't argue that people aren't taking advantage of souping to bend or break rules, or finding wonky combo's that were a huge oversight.