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.

What do you guys think about the concept of "Tiered games" in 7th edition? Like:


Tier 1: Infantry only

Tier 2: Infantry, Monstrous Creatures, Tanks and Walkers

Tier 3: Infantry, Monstrous Creatures, Tanks, Walkers, Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures

Tier 4: Infantry, Monstrous Creatures, Tanks, Walkers, Flyers, Flying Monstrous Creatures, Strongholds and Superheavies


That way:

1) new players will have an easier way to learn the game mechanics, by agreeing to, e.g. play a Tier 1 game to get familiar with Infantry rules and can then work their way through higher tier games

2) it would balance small point games (500, 750 etc.) basically going "my guys against your guys" instead of "your guys against my AV14 tank, har har"

3) Easy for Tournament Organizers or FLGS to create special games

4) Nobody will whine about having an ineffective army anymore, as both players will now know beforehand what Tier they will be playing, so they have time to adjust their armylist accordingly.

I guess it could work for some people, but I don't think it's a good idea to divide the community even more than it already is. For example, I find the thought of an infantry-only game boring as hell and would be reluctant to play a no-flyers game, so I'm not going to have much of an overlap with someone who likes those lower tiers. I can see it turning into a bunch of different factions, each determined to only play their preferred tier (along with their existing preferences about FW/casual vs. competitive/etc) and little hope of getting an enjoyable pickup game.

I would much rather see a version of the game where everything is balanced and restrictions like this are unnecessary, so we can all play the same game without any conflict.

I assume by infantry you are including all types not otherwise mentioned.

I.e. Cavalary, Jet Pack, Bikes, Beasts.

Beyond that I really don't think it works very well. Each army is built differently with different strengths and weaknesses. For example if you go infantry only (assuming other things stayed as they are now) I could still run most of today's abusive deathstar builds.

The game just needs to be balanced overall, half measures only go so far.

Tier 1: Infantry only

Tier 2: Infantry, Monstrous Creatures, Tanks and Walkers

Tier 3: Infantry, Monstrous Creatures, Tanks, Walkers, Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures

Tier 4: Infantry, Monstrous Creatures, Tanks, Walkers, Flyers, Flying Monstrous Creatures and Superheavies

Its actually a good idea, especially when it comes to tournaments.
In our local tourneys, at the moment, we play according to Tier 3 and don't allow superheavies and D weapons coming from other kind of sources (Knights, Strongholds).

I don't think it would achieve much. Some people will still bring the exploitative units within each tier, e.g. deathstars in tier 1.

In my opinion, it's flaws in the core rules that have led to the game feeling more and more like an expensive and time-consuming version of paper-scissors-rock.

At this point I'd rather see a return of the 2nd edition style of army building, where you had HQ, Troops (called differently) and Support with varying percentages, and all of your infantry/cavalry types (e.g. Bikes) were under Troops. That way you are free to make say an all-Terminator army if you wanted to represent 1st Company or an assault company or whatever.

I think its an interesting idea. Especially considering a lot of tournaments already make distinctions such as these.

I just don't think its something we want to bring into casual games for the most part.

I don't think it fixes balance issues at all. And you'd need to decide about how to handle dedicated transports. But I like the idea from the point of view of fun battles in different ways.

I like this tier idea, it doesn't need to be in the rule book for it to work ether.

Could take what was listed here and make certain units / dedicated transports listed as "special" where only a percentage based on "troop" points spent could be used.

Night Scythes, Wave Serpents and Crusader squad LRC's spring to mind.

I tried many times to find a "balance" within the game but it seems too much of a moving target. The complexities with overlapping support traits or powers really upscale the complexity.

It is a worthy task but seems doubtful it will achieve the goal.

A way of fixing Warhammer 40,000 7th edition? How do you fix something that doesn't even exist?

WayneTheGame wrote:
At this point I'd rather see a return of the 2nd edition style of army building, where you had HQ, Troops (called differently) and Support with varying percentages, and all of your infantry/cavalry types (e.g. Bikes) were under Troops. That way you are free to make say an all-Terminator army if you wanted to represent 1st Company or an assault company or whatever.

I was thinking about that recently and wondered if they could do a percentage chart but perhaps with more categories than before, I.e. HQ, Troops, Auxiliaries, Support, Allies, Etc. The problem in 2nd was that everything was troops just about, so you could make an army of just brutal units to the point of ridiculousness.

Or what about a more internally structured FOC? For each troops choice you may take one HQ and one of either FA, HS or E? You could add some choices that allowed an extra slot of some category, or a freebie of X other unit etc.

Obviously each would require a ground up rewrite, as points values also seem to reflect what slot the unit is from and the other choices you pass up to take it.

Troops vs troops are pretty ballanced on their own. However, dedicated transports might be a problem here. Wave serpents will be even more imballanced if you're limited to only troop choices when fighting them.

 koooaei wrote:
Troops vs troops are pretty ballanced on their own. However, dedicated transports might be a problem here. Wave serpents will be even more imballanced if you're limited to only troop choices when fighting them.

You can always take AT weapons on your infantry squads.



I was considering the option that in Tier 1 there wouldnt be any transports because transports have the "tank" unit type in their description and only Tier 2 would allow tanks, so no need to fear serpent spam.


...but then Tier 1 will suck for Dark Eldar and also for assault-oriented MEQ armies like BT, BA and SW, as the defending player can simply form a convenient gunline and spam blast weapons, but usually Tier 1 games arent very big in terms of points, so chances of seeing 4 Plasmacannon Devastator squads or Grav Centurions wont be too likely

My memory may be foggy here, but didn't the 3rd edition rulebook have limited FOC for each mission you were playing?

I remember, maybe incorrectly, that one mission limited you to one Heavy choice.

My buddy and I played every Wednesday and we would set the mission and points for the next week after our game and I seem to remember various FOC for each mission in the book.

This seems fairly similar to the Tiers you mention.

I don't think that this is the way to fix it as a tiered option. I think that units need to be individually tiered, like in Pokemon. Pokemon has one authority that does a very good job of placing everything in appropriate tiers, and then rebalances whenever new things come out.

The only problem would be having an unbiased authority (and somebody who actually plays) do the balancing, because I'm pretty sure if it would happen now everything good in the CSM and Daemons Codexes would be banned, with minimal changes to everything else.

Sir Arun - you mean "vehilce" surely? "Tank" is a separeate designation that asllows you to tankshock, amongst other things. Not all DTs are tanks (Trukks without a reinforced ram, etc)

pejota wrote:
My memory may be foggy here, but didn't the 3rd edition rulebook have limited FOC for each mission you were playing?

I remember, maybe incorrectly, that one mission limited you to one Heavy choice.

My buddy and I played every Wednesday and we would set the mission and points for the next week after our game and I seem to remember various FOC for each mission in the book.

This seems fairly similar to the Tiers you mention.

Yes, it did. Certain missions further restricted your FOC choices, also whether you were attacker/defender.

Would completely make certain armies terrible depending on the tier... Some armies rely on Monsterous Creatures

I understand your idea but it is flawed. As pointed out previously different armies rely on different units. I'm playing nids right now and I can't field an army without MC's. That would leave me with a deathleaper hq and nothing but warriors for synapse.

 Sir Arun wrote:
What do you guys think about the concept of "Tiered games" in 7th edition? Like:


Tier 1: Infantry only

Tier 2: Infantry, Monstrous Creatures, Tanks and Walkers

Tier 3: Infantry, Monstrous Creatures, Tanks, Walkers, Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures

Tier 4: Infantry, Monstrous Creatures, Tanks, Walkers, Flyers, Flying Monstrous Creatures, Strongholds and Superheavies


That way:

1) new players will have an easier way to learn the game mechanics, by agreeing to, e.g. play a Tier 1 game to get familiar with Infantry rules and can then work their way through higher tier games

2) it would balance small point games (500, 750 etc.) basically going "my guys against your guys" instead of "your guys against my AV14 tank, har har"

3) Easy for Tournament Organizers or FLGS to create special games

4) Nobody will whine about having an ineffective army anymore, as both players will now know beforehand what Tier they will be playing, so they have time to adjust their armylist accordingly.

Go for it. Thats what house rules are for, personalized rules variations designed for your particuler gaming group.

Imnewherewheresthebathroom wrote:
I understand your idea but it is flawed. As pointed out previously different armies rely on different units. I'm playing nids right now and I can't field an army without MC's. That would leave me with a deathleaper hq and nothing but warriors for synapse.

and zoanthropes, which almost everyone seems to bring. On the pro-side, wouldnt Nid players like it if they faced an infantry army instead of one bearing flyers and tanks?

I believe there are allready special rules for low-pts games like in killteam. No models with 2+ wounds, no vehicles with av 33+. The only things it doesn't cover is necron vehicles and wave serpents. So they're just prohibited explictly.

 Peregrine wrote:

I would much rather see a version of the game where everything is balanced and restrictions like this are unnecessary, so we can all play the same game without any conflict.

Just this. So much this.

I believe the only way to please everyone with 40k 7th /8th ed.
Is to write a 'mutable rule set'.

Newbs get a simple skirmish game .
Then they can add on advanced rules, the competitive skirmish pack,, or the narrative skirmish pack..

As their model collections grow , they can move to the ..
Simple battle game .
Then they can add on advanced rules .The competitive battle pack, or the narrative battle pack.

But this would need a complete re-write from the ground up.(Because WHFB in space rules do not scale up at all well!)