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.

Nibbler wrote:
that would be "writing another game", as I see it.

So? That's pretty much the whole premise of this thread.

Yes we are. Point changes can and do happen. Hoping that minimarines get cheaper is realistic, hoping that they will be given Primaris rules is not.

But point changes alone can't do much because the problem is not with the costing but with unit performance (and a few other things). If we are focusing on "what can realistically happen" then we are not trying to make the game more balanced, only doing a very advanced form of rumormongering.

Balance can be achieved via points, that's the whole purpose of the points. But if you want more expensive, more elite marines, those exist and they are called Primaris marines.

Personally I'd rather keep the discussion within the realm of plausibility. In a way that if Pete Foley reads this thread he could pick up ideas that could actually get implemented.

 Crimson wrote:
Balance can be achieved via points, that's the whole purpose of the points.

I disagree here. Points can't do balance. They might make you feel like there is some because while your crap remains crap it at least becomes cheap, but the point of balance is that you shouldn't have crap lying around in the first place. Also, for example, my gaming group plays Power Levels and we don't use points - what would point changes do for us?

But if you want more expensive, more elite marines, those exist and they are called Primaris marines.

When I want my expensive, elite Space Marines then I want Tacticals riding Drop Pods, Devastators carrying around heavy weapons, Assault Squads jumping around and chopping up stuff... you know, Space Marines. Not a bunch of 30k Legionnaire and Sororitas Seraphim LARPers.

 AtoMaki wrote:

I disagree here. Points can't do balance. They might make you feel like there is some because while your crap remains crap it at least becomes cheap, but the point of balance is that you shouldn't have crap lying around in the first place.

Of course points can do balance, that's why they exist! Cheap crap becomes good. Do you think an individual guardsman is better than an individual tactical marine? They aren't, it is them being dirt cheap which makes them good.

Also, for example, my gaming group plays Power Levels and we don't use points - what would point changes do for us?

Nothing. But by using PL you have abandoned pursuing rigorous balance in the first place.

When I want my expensive, elite Space Marines then I want Tacticals riding Drop Pods, Devastators carrying around heavy weapons, Assault Squads jumping around and chopping up stuff... you know, Space Marines. Not a bunch of 30k Legionnaire and Sororitas Seraphim LARPers.

Well, then you better hope that they release Primaris versions of those units soon, or you can start writing your own house rules. Those are the options that actually exist.

 Crimson wrote:
Balance can be achieved via points, that's the whole purpose of the points. But if you want more expensive, more elite marines, those exist and they are called Primaris marines.

Personally I'd rather keep the discussion within the realm of playsabilty. In a way that if Pete Foley reads this thread he could pick up ideas that could actually get implemented.

Balance can be achieved via points, yes, but it's also true that there are problems points can't solve. 2+ saves/AP2 in 7e was a problem you couldn't really fix with points because a 2+ save is six times as effective against an army with little/no AP2 as it is against an army with lots of AP2, so any points cost you associate with 2+ armour would either be grotesquely underpriced or grotesquely overpriced depending on matchup. Similarly expensive infantry in 40k aren't a problem you can solve with points, because a bolter Tactical Marine is fairly priced in an infantry matchup but grotesquely overpriced in a world where things like battle cannon spam exists; if you made Space Marines a lot cheaper without doing anything else to their stats you'd probably end up making them too good in small games.

Back in 7e the solution for Space Marines was to give them 550pts of free Razorbacks. That's a points-based solution, and it's also a terrible solution.

 Crimson wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

I disagree here. Points can't do balance. They might make you feel like there is some because while your crap remains crap it at least becomes cheap, but the point of balance is that you shouldn't have crap lying around in the first place.

Of course points can do balance, that's why they exist! Cheap crap becomes good.

It really does not. I can't recall a single unit from the top of my head that was fixed by points reduction. Cheap crap only makes you feel good because the ratio between your investment and your disappointment is more favorable.

But by using PL you have abandoned pursuing rigorous balance in the first place.

Oddly enough, we switched to Power Level because we wanted better balance.

Those are the options that actually exist.

Again, I don't care. I want my elite Space Marines. The real stuff. That's it.

Elite how, though?

Elite as in great per model? You should pay a high points cost. You should expect that one strategy for beating you is by taking more Guardsmen and outslogging you.

Elite as in does-one-thing-great? You should expect to be crappy at everything else.

Elite as in does-everything-reasonably? You should expect to be outplayed by generalists whenever engaged on their terms.

Elite as in awesome PPM? You're basically asking for the game to be *un*balanced, explicitly in their favor.

Remember that Marines are not - and never have been - the only Elite army in the game. So we need to decide what exactly makes them elite?

" I can't recall a single unit from the top of my head that was fixed by points reduction."
Guardsmen. 5ppm, trash. 4ppm, amazing.
WK. From Garbage Tier to Reasonable with just a points adjustment.

 AtoMaki wrote:

It really does not. I can't recall a single unit from the top of my head that was fixed by points reduction. Cheap crap only makes you feel good because the ratio between your investment and your disappointment is more favorable.

So you don't think tactical marines wouldn't be good if they costed ten points? How about eight points?

Again, I don't care. I want my elite Space Marines. The real stuff. That's it.

And I want a new Star Trek movie with the original cast! It's not gonna happen.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Those are the options that actually exist.

Again, I don't care. I want my elite Space Marines. The real stuff. That's it.

Things like this make me wonder sometimes if the fact that Space Marines exist is the problem. The vast majority of games in the world don't try to make units that fill the same function in an army list vary so much; in 40k I can spend 5pts/model on a Guardsman or 20pts/model on a Grey Knight and the game would have me believe that these are both Troops that serve as my front-and-center ground-holders, as opposed to Warmachine (where my single-wound chaff might be 0.9pts/model if they're random zombies or 2.2pts/model if they're berserkers possessed by epic demonic swords), or Infinity (where my hardcore ARM4+ 2W heavy infantry start at about 40pts and finish at about 70pts), or Bolt Action (where everyone's got the same general set of 7pt green troops, 10pt regulars, or 13pt veterans).

WHFB might be to blame for the disparity since in an environment where frontage and depth determine how many attacks you can get rather than sheer volume of models, and where morale can wipe units instead of being a random afterthought, having 2pt zombies and 15pt Chaos Warriors in the same game does function, but it seems to be the source of a lot of problems in 40k.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Balance can be achieved via points, that's the whole purpose of the points. But if you want more expensive, more elite marines, those exist and they are called Primaris marines.

Personally I'd rather keep the discussion within the realm of playsabilty. In a way that if Pete Foley reads this thread he could pick up ideas that could actually get implemented.

Balance can be achieved via points, yes, but it's also true that there are problems points can't solve. 2+ saves/AP2 in 7e was a problem you couldn't really fix with points because a 2+ save is six times as effective against an army with little/no AP2 as it is against an army with lots of AP2, so any points cost you associate with 2+ armour would either be grotesquely underpriced or grotesquely overpriced depending on matchup. Similarly expensive infantry in 40k aren't a problem you can solve with points, because a bolter Tactical Marine is fairly priced in an infantry matchup but grotesquely overpriced in a world where things like battle cannon spam exists; if you made Space Marines a lot cheaper without doing anything else to their stats you'd probably end up making them too good in small games.

Back in 7e the solution for Space Marines was to give them 550pts of free Razorbacks. That's a points-based solution, and it's also a terrible solution.

That isn't a problem for points. If I take all pistols and my opponent has only knights I'm going to have a bad time. You can't point yourself out of bad decisions.

Points aren't the only tool for balance, but they are a tool.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Balance can be achieved via points, that's the whole purpose of the points. But if you want more expensive, more elite marines, those exist and they are called Primaris marines.

Personally I'd rather keep the discussion within the realm of playsabilty. In a way that if Pete Foley reads this thread he could pick up ideas that could actually get implemented.

Balance can be achieved via points, yes, but it's also true that there are problems points can't solve. 2+ saves/AP2 in 7e was a problem you couldn't really fix with points because a 2+ save is six times as effective against an army with little/no AP2 as it is against an army with lots of AP2, so any points cost you associate with 2+ armour would either be grotesquely underpriced or grotesquely overpriced depending on matchup. Similarly expensive infantry in 40k aren't a problem you can solve with points, because a bolter Tactical Marine is fairly priced in an infantry matchup but grotesquely overpriced in a world where things like battle cannon spam exists; if you made Space Marines a lot cheaper without doing anything else to their stats you'd probably end up making them too good in small games.

Back in 7e the solution for Space Marines was to give them 550pts of free Razorbacks. That's a points-based solution, and it's also a terrible solution.

That isn't a problem for points. If I take all pistols and my opponent has only knights I'm going to have a bad time. You can't point yourself out of bad decisions.

Exactly. The writers can't point themselves out of the mess of size creep/bigger-guns/infantry-race-to-the-bottom they've turned 40k into without other changes.

 Crimson wrote:
Balance can be achieved via points, that's the whole purpose of the points. But if you want more expensive, more elite marines, those exist and they are called Primaris marines.

Personally I'd rather keep the discussion within the realm of playsabilty. In a way that if Pete Foley reads this thread he could pick up ideas that could actually get implemented.

Balance cannot be achieved via points as they currently exist, they are not granular enough for that purpose. Look at it this way, later in the thread you ask if marines would be balanced at 10 points, maybe, against all other units probably not. 8 points maybe but if ork boyz are 7 are they now crap because they have a worse statline in most respects. You would need a much more granular points system, maybe multiply everything by a factor of 10 as a start so marines are 130 points each, that leaves you a lot more room to differentiate between similar units. Think of it this way. A guardsman is 5 points, any point change is +- 20% of its cost, that is not a very good ability to fine tune the balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Balance can be achieved via points, that's the whole purpose of the points. But if you want more expensive, more elite marines, those exist and they are called Primaris marines.

Personally I'd rather keep the discussion within the realm of playsabilty. In a way that if Pete Foley reads this thread he could pick up ideas that could actually get implemented.

Balance can be achieved via points, yes, but it's also true that there are problems points can't solve. 2+ saves/AP2 in 7e was a problem you couldn't really fix with points because a 2+ save is six times as effective against an army with little/no AP2 as it is against an army with lots of AP2, so any points cost you associate with 2+ armour would either be grotesquely underpriced or grotesquely overpriced depending on matchup. Similarly expensive infantry in 40k aren't a problem you can solve with points, because a bolter Tactical Marine is fairly priced in an infantry matchup but grotesquely overpriced in a world where things like battle cannon spam exists; if you made Space Marines a lot cheaper without doing anything else to their stats you'd probably end up making them too good in small games.

Back in 7e the solution for Space Marines was to give them 550pts of free Razorbacks. That's a points-based solution, and it's also a terrible solution.

This is also true, limitations on units and rosters also need to be included if you want balance skew lists need to be eliminated, that may not be desirable, but it is borderline impossible (without a huge overhaul) to balance a game where it is possible for one player to take an army of all tanks, and someone else to take all chaff. In both cases certain upgrades become less useful. Against the all tanks, your anti-infantry weapons are not worth as much as they would be otherwise. The opposite for all cheap infantry. SO for points to work you would need to require more balanced style lists. That may not be desirable from a fun perspective, but it is needed from a balance standpoint. The other way to approach it would be to make changes like, multiple wounds carry over so a melta gun might kill 6 infantry models

 AtoMaki wrote:

I disagree here. Points can't do balance. They might make you feel like there is some because while your crap remains crap it at least becomes cheap, but the point of balance is that you shouldn't have crap lying around in the first place. Also, for example, my gaming group plays Power Levels and we don't use points - what would point changes do for us?
LARPers.

Man I don;t envy the GK players in your group. Their Power Level costs include the point costs of upgrades no one takes, because they make GK worse. Hard to imagine, but PL actually make GK worse then with normal points.

That isn't a problem for points. If I take all pistols and my opponent has only knights I'm going to have a bad time. You can't point yourself out of bad decisions.

Points aren't the only tool for balance, but they are a tool.

What if GW has decided to give your army only pistols, and it is not a question of unit or geat choice, but GW design.

Point changes are important, but without rule changes they will never work. The only changes that can point shifts can cause is maybe buff one or two unit, if done right, or just overpower or overnerf an army with done wrong.

Bharring wrote:
Elite how, though?

A low model count, high general performance base block (the standard Space Marine) with specialized support mostly hanging around to make the block prevail in non-optimal scenarios. Advantages: low skill floor and skill ceiling, the army works well in any situation under most circumstances. Disadvantages: very little army depth, simple to play with but also simple to play against. This is the kind of elite Space Marines should be.

So you don't think tactical marines wouldn't be good if they costed ten points? How about eight points?

10 points for a Space Marine would be an insult. Like, geez, a Space Marine having the worth of two(!) Cultists(!!) would herald a whole new age of Marinelet memes. And it would still solve nothing in the grander scheme of things.

 AtoMaki wrote:
I disagree here. Points can't do balance. They might make you feel like there is some because while your crap remains crap it at least becomes cheap, but the point of balance is that you shouldn't have crap lying around in the first place. Also, for example, my gaming group plays Power Levels and we don't use points - what would point changes do for us?

It'd move "Absurdly McBigCannnon" back into apocalypse level games where they belong? Most of these things are 'bad' because the meta says if something can't kill everything on the table rolling nothing but ones it's horrible(yes that's hyperbole, but not by much). If knights were pointed like stompas and gargants(or the naughts for that matter) we'd be having a wildly different conversation. If heavy weapons weren't cheap in a bid to allow people to ever defeat a knight at it's current points cost we could at some point find a point of balance in which tacticals are actually rather durable, because they aren't being focus fired by a lascannon or plasma gun a piece.

Obviously what I mention aren't the only offenders, but if people could get over having points on something raised to match it's effectiveness it's entirely possible. It's just that it's not possible right now without really hacking people off because they've built FOTM lists for a grand each and should realistically be able to fit closer to half that fire power into a single list at the usual points values.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
It'd move "Absurdly McBigCannnon" back into apocalypse level games where they belong?

I would rather have this without a weird tackled-on "You can have it but it is REALLY expensive!" twist.

 AtoMaki wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
It'd move "Absurdly McBigCannnon" back into apocalypse level games where they belong?

I would rather have this without a weird tackled-on "You can have it but it is REALLY expensive!" twist.

So you don't want a balanced game?

If a unit single handedly out performs the vast majority of other units, it's going to have to be far more expensive. If it deletes units off the board in their entirety, it should have a cost representing that.

Breng77 wrote:
...but it is borderline impossible (without a huge overhaul) to balance a game where it is possible for one player to take an army of all tanks, and someone else to take all chaff...

I've been trying to make this point since the beginning of the "take as many detachments as you want" epoch, but there's always some twit pouncing on me saying "but I have a fundamental right to play all Russes/all Knights/all Terminators if I want to!"

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
It'd move "Absurdly McBigCannnon" back into apocalypse level games where they belong?

I would rather have this without a weird tackled-on "You can have it but it is REALLY expensive!" twist.

So you don't want a balanced game?

If a unit single handedly out performs the vast majority of other units, it's going to have to be far more expensive. If it deletes units off the board in their entirety, it should have a cost representing that.

If GW can't make a balanced rule system, then as hard as it may sound, it is better to have an army with good or even OP rules, then an army with bad rules. Now my expiriance with GW rules changes is rather limited, but from what I did see in 8th, the chance of GW nerfing a good army is much smaller, then GW fixing a bad army.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
It'd move "Absurdly McBigCannnon" back into apocalypse level games where they belong?

I would rather have this without a weird tackled-on "You can have it but it is REALLY expensive!" twist.

So you don't want a balanced game?

I would banish the big toys from the standard game without making them unreasonably expensive and hoping that players won't take them then.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
...but it is borderline impossible (without a huge overhaul) to balance a game where it is possible for one player to take an army of all tanks, and someone else to take all chaff...

I've been trying to make this point since the beginning of the "take as many detachments as you want" epoch, but there's always some twit pouncing on me saying "but I have a fundamental right to play all Russes/all Knights/all Terminators if I want to!"

Probably because some of those armies have always had the ability to be done in some sorta manner. You had the old rules for entire vehicle regiments, Deathwing existing alone (and eventually Grey Knights getting the troop Terminators) and Knights just existing by themselves.

Don't act like there's no precedent.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
...but it is borderline impossible (without a huge overhaul) to balance a game where it is possible for one player to take an army of all tanks, and someone else to take all chaff...

I've been trying to make this point since the beginning of the "take as many detachments as you want" epoch, but there's always some twit pouncing on me saying "but I have a fundamental right to play all Russes/all Knights/all Terminators if I want to!"

Probably because some of those armies have always had the ability to be done in some sorta manner. You had the old rules for entire vehicle regiments, Deathwing existing alone (and eventually Grey Knights getting the troop Terminators) and Knights just existing by themselves.

Don't act like there's no precedent.

The 3e White Dwarf Armoured Company rules that weren't tournament-legal? Knights that didn't exist in 40k until 6e? I'm trying to reference 4e/early 5e where you got exactly one detachment, vehicles couldn't be squadroned, and there were no superheavies outside of Apocalypse.

AnomanderRake wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
...but it is borderline impossible (without a huge overhaul) to balance a game where it is possible for one player to take an army of all tanks, and someone else to take all chaff...

I've been trying to make this point since the beginning of the "take as many detachments as you want" epoch, but there's always some twit pouncing on me saying "but I have a fundamental right to play all Russes/all Knights/all Terminators if I want to!"

And they do have a right to play all that, just as you have a right to refuse playing a one-sided game. Any game where you take on the task of creating a list with only the partial guidelines, you're going to run in to that issue.

It is quite possible to run in to a similar situation in WMH, actually. If I take Broadsides Bart (Pirate Warcaster who likes shooty Warjacks) with just enough Buccaneers (weak light Warjacks that can only shoot with a net) and using the rest of my points with Sea Dog Crewman (weak, cheap infantry) without taking certain buffing solos that give Tough, prevent Knock Down, etc, against another army's Warjack 'Caster running as many of their Colossals and heavy armor as possible, I can expect to be stomped. But you really have to set yourself up to fail that big in WMH.

Ironically, I remember a training mission for Battletech in which you took the 4 lightest 'Mechs to face off against a damaged Battlemaster, the heaviest Mech in the box. This was to teach players about movement and taking advantage of the terrain with light mechs to get their very short range and rather limited and weak weapons, against a much heavier target which outgunned them and had one gun that outranged them. Alternatively, it was also a lesson for using those Heavy and Assault 'Mechs strengths of high toughness and firepower to take out annoying targets. However, it should be noted that the Armor in BT is ablative and closer to Wounds (a whole lot of Wounds) and very few weapons won't do some damage on a hit. That's not the case with wither Warhammers or Warmachine.

Then again, there was the 40K Battle Mission from yester-year in which one person took a Super-Heavy (Baneblade, Knight, etc), and the other person took the equivalent in points (with no detachment requirements) to that Super-Heavy with the only goal of preventing it from crossing the table.

 AtoMaki wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
It'd move "Absurdly McBigCannnon" back into apocalypse level games where they belong?

I would rather have this without a weird tackled-on "You can have it but it is REALLY expensive!" twist.

So you don't want a balanced game?

I would banish the big toys from the standard game without making them unreasonably expensive and hoping that players won't take them then.

Example: Instead of saying "Here's the 'super Apocalypse Titan' thing only usable in Apocalypse" GW decided to make the Revenant 800pts more expensive without changing it in any way, so now a Phantom is all of 500pts more expensive than a Revenant and is way more than 500pts better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
...but it is borderline impossible (without a huge overhaul) to balance a game where it is possible for one player to take an army of all tanks, and someone else to take all chaff...

I've been trying to make this point since the beginning of the "take as many detachments as you want" epoch, but there's always some twit pouncing on me saying "but I have a fundamental right to play all Russes/all Knights/all Terminators if I want to!"

And they do have a right to play all that, just as you have a right to refuse playing a one-sided game. Any game where you take on the task of creating a list with only the partial guidelines, you're going to run in to that issue...

Why?

I can go out and buy five Gandalfs for LotR. They don't make a legal list because Gandalf is a named character and I can't have five of him. Should I be allowed to play five Gandalfs just because I feel like it?

Why is "but I want to ignore any army composition rules and play whatever models I feel like!" an unassailable argument that the game must be designed around?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
...but it is borderline impossible (without a huge overhaul) to balance a game where it is possible for one player to take an army of all tanks, and someone else to take all chaff...

I've been trying to make this point since the beginning of the "take as many detachments as you want" epoch, but there's always some twit pouncing on me saying "but I have a fundamental right to play all Russes/all Knights/all Terminators if I want to!"

So, I don't quite agree.

We have points - that helps with balance.

A limit of 3 detachments helps with balance.

The interplay of CP helps with balance - aside from IS giving a little too much.

The way you've presented it here does not reflect those dynamics.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
...but it is borderline impossible (without a huge overhaul) to balance a game where it is possible for one player to take an army of all tanks, and someone else to take all chaff...

I've been trying to make this point since the beginning of the "take as many detachments as you want" epoch, but there's always some twit pouncing on me saying "but I have a fundamental right to play all Russes/all Knights/all Terminators if I want to!"

So, I don't quite agree.

We have points - that helps with balance.

A limit of 3 detachments helps with balance.

The interplay of CP helps with balance - aside from IS giving a little too much.

The way you've presented it here does not reflect those dynamics.

Kind of. The problem with the 3-detachment limit is that it isn't at all limiting; people don't play games big enough to need fifteen Knights, or 180 Custodians, or any of the other things a 3-detachment limit actually limits. It exists entirely to control allies and does almost nothing to skew because you can spam any type of unit you want.

CP don't really help in the face of skew; if I build an all-comers mono-Codex Marine army, and you plop down five Knights and tell me "all your weapons under S8 are suddenly irrelevant and I can RFP three infantry squads a turn with impunity" you could give me infinite CP and it wouldn't make a difference. If I plop down five Knights and you put on the table two hundred Poxwalkers and tell me "Kill as many of these as you can, you'll never be able to touch an objective" you could give the Knights infinite CP and it wouldn't make a difference.

Contrast this with 3e/4e-era armies; you have one detachment, no superheavies, you're required to take T3/T4 infantry, you can't have more than three of any slot...(Before someone brings up the Rule of 3 I mean no more than three Heavy Support choices at all ever and anything bigger than a Land Speeder isn't squadronable; you get three Russes, period, end of discussion, none of this "I have three squadrons of three and three command tanks..." crap.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
It'd move "Absurdly McBigCannnon" back into apocalypse level games where they belong?

I would rather have this without a weird tackled-on "You can have it but it is REALLY expensive!" twist.

So you don't want a balanced game?

I would banish the big toys from the standard game without making them unreasonably expensive and hoping that players won't take them then.

Example: Instead of saying "Here's the 'super Apocalypse Titan' thing only usable in Apocalypse" GW decided to make the Revenant 800pts more expensive without changing it in any way, so now a Phantom is all of 500pts more expensive than a Revenant and is way more than 500pts better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
...but it is borderline impossible (without a huge overhaul) to balance a game where it is possible for one player to take an army of all tanks, and someone else to take all chaff...

I've been trying to make this point since the beginning of the "take as many detachments as you want" epoch, but there's always some twit pouncing on me saying "but I have a fundamental right to play all Russes/all Knights/all Terminators if I want to!"

And they do have a right to play all that, just as you have a right to refuse playing a one-sided game. Any game where you take on the task of creating a list with only the partial guidelines, you're going to run in to that issue...

Why?

I can go out and buy five Gandalfs for LotR. They don't make a legal list because Gandalf is a named character and I can't have five of him. Should I be allowed to play five Gandalfs just because I feel like it?

Why is "but I want to ignore any army composition rules and play whatever models I feel like!" an unassailable argument that the game must be designed around?

Because Gandalf is a named character, and in a matched play game there can only be one Gandalf per army, yes?
Whereas a generic Leman Russ is a generic Leman Russ.

 Charistoph wrote:
Not quite, there is a third option, and that while Kroot may be decent in melee, it still takes some investment, such as number of models, in order to accomplish the same action that other armies generally do with fewer models and/or units.

That isn't really a third option because the difference between a good unit and a bad unit is points efficiency in terms of damage output and durability. Either kroot can hang (point per point) with the melee heavy hitters of the other melee focused armies, which means they are a viable choice (and still spammable) thus making Tau (as a faction) not have melee combat as a weakness any more. Or they can't hang (point per point) with the melee heavy hitters of the other melee focused armies, at which point they become useless as you would be better off taking more fire warriors. There is no middle ground because having a melee unit in your army is not a requirement for winning the game... and since kroot and fire warriors are both troops they will constantly be compared against each other. Why take a troop option that can't even perform its stated role efficiently?

I think there is a point value for every unit where it is neither an autorake nor an autopsy. That's close enough to balanced.

Martel732 wrote:
I think there is a point value for every unit where it is neither an autorake nor an autopsy. That's close enough to balanced.

Agreed... But, when an army's stated weakness is to be poor in melee, how do you force a faction to conform to that weakness if they are allowed to take unlimited amounts of viable melee troops?

You either make the melee troops so bad that nobody takes them and they become a trap option, which is how 40k is balanced now.

Or you make them viable but limit the numbers in which they can be fielded.

You can apply this to any army's weakness not just Tau in melee. IE Khorne in shooting, grey knights in only fielding elite units, space marines with poor vehicles etc.