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.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

I disagree with that. I don't think there's a compelling reason to limit factions. For one, there are numerous ways of expressing difference, even when based on a D6. But also, there's not a huge reason for factions to be tremendously different from one another, and one could cite many a historical game as evidence for that. (Or just Horus Heresy, I suppose)

Historical games are under no pressure to make each faction "feel" different. Depending on the era, much of the time the difference will be purely organizational. The whole point of 40k is that the factions have different stats and equipment, which leads to massive (and ongoing!) requirements for new special rules to separate them since simply having different core stats isn't enough.

Right, GW doesn't only rely on core stats, they also rely on some array of special rules, for which a small amount can work pretty well, and along with differences in unit choices, can make for extremely different armies. A great examole of this would be 3rd ed Necrons vs. 3rd ed Marines. The core stats of the baseline Necron and the baseline Marine were nearly identical, however small differences between their army wide special rules (ATSKNF vs. WBB), plus unit choice differences, made for VERY different play experiences.

Not to mention loyalist Marines vs. CSM.

But also, it's also artificially limiting to say that 40K factions need to be hugely different too. See HH.

Are core stats really that easy to balance? Doesn't seem that way for GW at least. A lot of abilities don't seem that hard to balance. We've had discussion previously about the difficulty with balancing AP in a game with different types of lists and a meta that makes certain AP values less valuable than they otherwise would be. Flayed Ones getting bonus hits against non-vehicles on the other hand isn't as hard to account for.

I don't think you need factions to have different rules and stats, they just need to have thematic rules and stats. If Necrons end up having a weapon with "bolt pistol stats" and no ability on a unit then that's not wrong if in the fluff the weapon works about the same then it doesn't need to be S3 with auto-wounds on hit rolls of 6 for no reason. Some of the time a unit or weapons fantasy cannot be sold properly without an ability.

Karol wrote:

Breton 809475 11522878 wrote: Why would they have that? I mean they didn't even have I that high when Initiative was a thing, let alone when/if it got brought back as an opposing stat with this specifically in mind.

Because I have expirianced 2 editions of GW writing rules for eldar and seen another 4 editions worth in writing. If that "initiative" trait would have impact on how hard it is to hit a unit with shoting, we would get, with eldar rules, the same thing we got when they could stack multiple minus to hit modifires. And having unkillable armies, that are also fast and super efficient in killing stuff is not fun to play against.

Probably not. The whole point of the exercise is to make man sized stuff hard to hit by anti tank, and tank stuff hard to hurt by anti-infantry. And while I get holding a grudge against some army that gets your goat, its not really proof of some 150% boost that army is going to get. Initiative is/would be fairly standardized based on race + rank + or - individual tailored adjustments i.e. the slow lumbering Space Marine Terminator - Marine base I4, Veteran +1, Terminator Armor -1 = I4. Eldar Karandas Base I4, HQ +2, CC Aspect +1 = I7 Probably give Tyranid warriors a 3-4 and the little bugs a 4-5

IMHO the two largest issues are:

1) The scale. 40k is trying to be like at least 3 different scale games, with the same miniature scale and rules. There's a reason why in the historical community you see games that want to let you fight larger battles (e.g. Leipzig, Gettysburg, Kursk) often based around small scale figures. There's also a reason why the battalion/company games restrict the really heavy firepower. Bolt Action for insurance usually limits you to a single armored car/half-track type vehicle and a single tank. Air support is basically like an artillery strike, not the planes zooming around back and forth.

40k instead is trying to appeal to people who want a small platoon level game, company/battalion level, and higher all with the same fairly detailed rules and with one scale to rule them all.

2) faction bloat. Probably more than anything else. There are so many factions and GW feels each needs to be unique that it's no wonder things quickly get bloated by wanting them to feel different. On top of that, even if they released a codex a month it would be upwards of 2 years for every faction to get its update. The whole codex system is obsolete and cumbersome and that's before you factor in GW's insistence that each one adds more layers to the base system, which inevitability leads to design changes midway through that skews balance between what came before and what comes after.

If they really want to streamline the game the first thing is to stop the codex model.