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.

If the question was "how would the outcome of games be affected were players forced to construct their armies using a single Codex," that might be more interesting to talk about.

That was what I was aiming at but my lack of post structure had it degenerate into randomly generated thematical questions.

 techsoldaten wrote:
If the question was "how would the outcome of games be affected were players forced to construct their armies using a single Codex," that might be more interesting to talk about.

Much as the game was in the past, it would come down to how powerful and flexible each codex was with no possibility of improving your situation through allies - just the long wait for the next book.

Even as a WH/DH player though i'm not a huge fan of the 'improve your army by taking less of your army' situation and GWs decisions over the years have made balancing faction advantages against drawbacks impossible for the Imperium and Chaos - units being neutered to prevent them from being cherry picked.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Certain armies simply don't work with out allies, which puts GW in a bind with how to balance allies in general, particularly as they release more and more tiny factions.

5th edition would argue otherwise...

We still had the weak and strong codices, but each codex worked on its own.

If they scrapped the whole allies idea, it would allow them to adjust the armies to work on their own. Then the armies that have options to ally would be more special, i.e. chaos using demons, genestealer cults, marines embeded in an ig army.

I do like being able to ally, but i hate having to feel like i must ally to compete.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A.T. wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
If the question was "how would the outcome of games be affected were players forced to construct their armies using a single Codex," that might be more interesting to talk about.

Much as the game was in the past, it would come down to how powerful and flexible each codex was with no possibility of improving your situation through allies - just the long wait for the next book.

Even as a WH/DH player though i'm not a huge fan of the 'improve your army by taking less of your army' situation and GWs decisions over the years have made balancing faction advantages against drawbacks impossible for the Imperium and Chaos - units being neutered to prevent them from being cherry picked.

I agree. This all started in n 6th with the stupidity there (remember necron/blood angel allies?)

By allowing armies to combine they made it harder to balance, and created situations where broken combinations are more common. Youd think by now they would know people will game and pick the most efficient combinations of units, and with the way the web works now, theres plenty of data for them to check to make game adjustments.

 Zid wrote:
By allowing armies to combine they made it harder to balance, and created situations where broken combinations are more common. Youd think by now they would know people will game and pick the most efficient combinations of units, and with the way the web works now, theres plenty of data for them to check to make game adjustments.

Oh they do. They are counting on it...

A.T. wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
If the question was "how would the outcome of games be affected were players forced to construct their armies using a single Codex," that might be more interesting to talk about.

Much as the game was in the past, it would come down to how powerful and flexible each codex was with no possibility of improving your situation through allies - just the long wait for the next book.

Even as a WH/DH player though i'm not a huge fan of the 'improve your army by taking less of your army' situation and GWs decisions over the years have made balancing faction advantages against drawbacks impossible for the Imperium and Chaos - units being neutered to prevent them from being cherry picked.

It'd be much easier to externally balance each codex if you weren't allowed to mix and match from individual codex?

Trying to balance the game with allies as they stand now is like trying to solve a second degree polynomial with just 1 equation.

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm glad dakka has absolutely no influence on balance.

I do find it ironic that:

The competitive community continues to grow, and outside of isolated incidents people have a great time.

Meanwhile, the casual community is just a nonstop cesspool of complaints and nerf threads, using tournament data to grind their axes.

Who enjoys the game more?

The casual players who sit back and watch it all happen.

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm glad dakka has absolutely no influence on balance.

I do find it ironic that:

The competitive community continues to grow, and outside of isolated incidents people have a great time.

Meanwhile, the casual community is just a nonstop cesspool of complaints and nerf threads, using tournament data to grind their axes.

Who enjoys the game more?

What you forget is that it's the casual players to whom game being reasonably balanced would be better. Competive players? Game is unbalanced and balance shifts? Just buy new army. They aren't interested in fluff nor have they tie with army so new army is no biggie. Indeed chasing down current broken combo is generally part of the point...Meanwhile casual players are the ones who can't just switch to new broken combo. While nobody enjoys games that are foregone conclusion.

It's the casual group that has vested interested in game being balanced. Competive ones just go for next broken combo.

Soup as a concept is fine.

Soup needs to be balanced with Mono lists.

At some point as well, the game follows the Fluff. People read about X person and Y forces, and Z forces all scrapping with A,b and C forces want that look on the table as well.

But it doesn't stop there. How many times did you see Deathwing armies show when they were the only ones who could have an all Terminator Army. Those kind of options were popular and should be.

The game is ready for a Organized play offshoot. This would make clear the subdivide between the Casual and Competitive players, and that would really help the game's community.

tneva82 wrote:


What you forget is that it's the casual players to whom game being reasonably balanced would be better. Competive players? Game is unbalanced and balance shifts? Just buy new army. They aren't interested in fluff nor have they tie with army so new army is no biggie. Indeed chasing down current broken combo is generally part of the point...Meanwhile casual players are the ones who can't just switch to new broken combo. While nobody enjoys games that are foregone conclusion.

It's the casual group that has vested interested in game being balanced. Competive ones just go for next broken combo.

But if a casual group isn't chasing down broken combos, then surely those broken combos wouldn't be a big problem for them? Unless one of the players coincidentally happens to have a combo that becomes OP or something.

tneva82 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm glad dakka has absolutely no influence on balance.

I do find it ironic that:

The competitive community continues to grow, and outside of isolated incidents people have a great time.

Meanwhile, the casual community is just a nonstop cesspool of complaints and nerf threads, using tournament data to grind their axes.

Who enjoys the game more?

What you forget is that it's the casual players to whom game being reasonably balanced would be better. Competive players? Game is unbalanced and balance shifts? Just buy new army. They aren't interested in fluff nor have they tie with army so new army is no biggie. Indeed chasing down current broken combo is generally part of the point...Meanwhile casual players are the ones who can't just switch to new broken combo. While nobody enjoys games that are foregone conclusion.

It's the casual group that has vested interested in game being balanced. Competive ones just go for next broken combo.

Pretty much this. I have long argued that a balanced game is beneficial to all players but it is MOST beneficial for casual players (who often put up the biggest fuss about changes).

 nurgle5 wrote:

But if a casual group isn't chasing down broken combos, then surely those broken combos wouldn't be a big problem for them? Unless one of the players coincidentally happens to have a combo that becomes OP or something.

I think this is a big reason why there are so many complaints about the IG. Their OP stuff is not some weird combo you need to specifically build towards, it it their basic bread and butter stuff, so it will be felt even in a casual environment where the players are not intentionally trying to break things.

 Crimson wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

But if a casual group isn't chasing down broken combos, then surely those broken combos wouldn't be a big problem for them? Unless one of the players coincidentally happens to have a combo that becomes OP or something.

I think this is a big reason why there are so many complaints about the IG. Their OP stuff is not some weird combo you need to specifically build towards, it it their basic bread and butter stuff, so it will be felt even in a casual environment where the players are not intentionally trying to break things.

Agreed with this. I went to use IG rules for my RnH. It was a pretty standard list. And also extremely broken. Went back to RnH, because rather be bad and have a fun time than have an OP list and stomp everyone.

 Zid wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Certain armies simply don't work with out allies, which puts GW in a bind with how to balance allies in general, particularly as they release more and more tiny factions.

5th edition would argue otherwise...

We still had the weak and strong codices, but each codex worked on its own.

If they scrapped the whole allies idea, it would allow them to adjust the armies to work on their own. Then the armies that have options to ally would be more special, i.e. chaos using demons, genestealer cults, marines embeded in an ig army.

I do like being able to ally, but i hate having to feel like i must ally to compete.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A.T. wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
If the question was "how would the outcome of games be affected were players forced to construct their armies using a single Codex," that might be more interesting to talk about.

Much as the game was in the past, it would come down to how powerful and flexible each codex was with no possibility of improving your situation through allies - just the long wait for the next book.

Even as a WH/DH player though i'm not a huge fan of the 'improve your army by taking less of your army' situation and GWs decisions over the years have made balancing faction advantages against drawbacks impossible for the Imperium and Chaos - units being neutered to prevent them from being cherry picked.

I agree. This all started in n 6th with the stupidity there (remember necron/blood angel allies?)

By allowing armies to combine they made it harder to balance, and created situations where broken combinations are more common. Youd think by now they would know people will game and pick the most efficient combinations of units, and with the way the web works now, theres plenty of data for them to check to make game adjustments.

>still had strong and weak codices
>each codex worked on its own

You gotta pick one. Otherwise this is just nostalgia talking for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm glad dakka has absolutely no influence on balance.

I do find it ironic that:

The competitive community continues to grow, and outside of isolated incidents people have a great time.

Meanwhile, the casual community is just a nonstop cesspool of complaints and nerf threads, using tournament data to grind their axes.

Who enjoys the game more?

What you forget is that it's the casual players to whom game being reasonably balanced would be better. Competive players? Game is unbalanced and balance shifts? Just buy new army. They aren't interested in fluff nor have they tie with army so new army is no biggie. Indeed chasing down current broken combo is generally part of the point...Meanwhile casual players are the ones who can't just switch to new broken combo. While nobody enjoys games that are foregone conclusion.

It's the casual group that has vested interested in game being balanced. Competive ones just go for next broken combo.

That's because the casual players secretly like their non-balanced lists and want no change to them.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Renegades and Heretics are utterly unplayable without allies.

Until they get their update.

If there was no soup you'd not be able to do a nice fun Blood Angel + Steel Legion armageddon force.
Because nobody but the Legion can make that delicious mushroom soup with herbs that only the blood angels posses.

And that'd be terrible

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Renegades and Heretics are utterly unplayable without allies.

Until they get their update.

Maybe when FW stops being such a mess (and it sadly is a big fecking mess right now).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Renegades and Heretics are utterly unplayable without allies.

Until they get their update.

Heh. Yeah. That, Bannerlord and half life 3. All be really fun in 2050.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Renegades and Heretics are utterly unplayable without allies.

Until they get their update.

Maybe when FW stops being such a mess (and it sadly is a big fecking mess right now).

Yeah. It's disappointing.

I like soup armies as it shows the incredible range of the 41st millennium. I don't generally play competitively (I go to the occasional tournament) and think the game is the most balanced and varied it has ever been.

Having huge factions and smaller factions is a good thing. It gives players options and allows for a range of different models. Apart from a few point costs and CP costs here and there I think soup is delicious.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Renegades and Heretics are utterly unplayable without allies.

Eh. They are okay. Militia suck, but Cultists with flamers and Enforcers as screening for Leman Russes works pretty well. Then through in some marauders and sents, it can work okay. Won't compete in a competitive setting, but let's be honest

In a competitive setting, Renegades are unplayable unless you intend to do anything other than use them to bring Leman Russes for other factions.

Actually it's just a mentality thing:


Competitive players: Okay, the game has changed, how do I win?

Casual players: I refuse to change or alter my expectations, the game is bad.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Zid wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Certain armies simply don't work with out allies, which puts GW in a bind with how to balance allies in general, particularly as they release more and more tiny factions.

5th edition would argue otherwise...

We still had the weak and strong codices, but each codex worked on its own.

If they scrapped the whole allies idea, it would allow them to adjust the armies to work on their own. Then the armies that have options to ally would be more special, i.e. chaos using demons, genestealer cults, marines embeded in an ig army.

I do like being able to ally, but i hate having to feel like i must ally to compete.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A.T. wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
If the question was "how would the outcome of games be affected were players forced to construct their armies using a single Codex," that might be more interesting to talk about.

Much as the game was in the past, it would come down to how powerful and flexible each codex was with no possibility of improving your situation through allies - just the long wait for the next book.

Even as a WH/DH player though i'm not a huge fan of the 'improve your army by taking less of your army' situation and GWs decisions over the years have made balancing faction advantages against drawbacks impossible for the Imperium and Chaos - units being neutered to prevent them from being cherry picked.

I agree. This all started in n 6th with the stupidity there (remember necron/blood angel allies?)

By allowing armies to combine they made it harder to balance, and created situations where broken combinations are more common. Youd think by now they would know people will game and pick the most efficient combinations of units, and with the way the web works now, theres plenty of data for them to check to make game adjustments.

>still had strong and weak codices
>each codex worked on its own

You gotta pick one. Otherwise this is just nostalgia talking for

My point was once upon a time the armies worked by themselves, the problems came from codex creep and extremely long release times for codices. Faqs were rare, balance issues persisted, but overall the game felt good.

I was able to play 4th edition codex armies (chaos demons) and beat 5th ed codex armies, and there were a variety of ways to play. Gw also were not active in balancing the codices either.

I think a few core issues sprang from allies:
1) dependence on cheap battalions for cp to fuel armies that were balanced around having limited cp (am + knights)
2) rules from one codex effecting the other. This was seen by the sudden need to nerf codex demons strats to not effect anyone else, yet we still have crap like ynnari.
3) armies picking power options from each other to power game. Yes, spam has always been a thing, but allies just exacerbated it by allowing people to instead spam the best stuff from multiple armies.

Im just saying if each codex operated independently, then some armies had options to ally (where it made sense, like chaos summoning demons) then i think it would be easier to spot broken combos and fix them, while balancing stuff.

I also said in another thread gw could always implement an armywide buff for players whom only use a single codex; for example, space marines would have a buff that gave all models in their detachment chapter tactics (which fixes the gripe that sm vehicles are left out to dry, and powers up the army). This could be applicable for any army that is underpowered when it operates by itself.

Its just an idea, i dont think soups going anywhere.

 Marmatag wrote:
Actually it's just a mentality thing:


Competitive players: Okay, the game has changed, how do I win?

Casual players: I refuse to change or alter my expectations, the game is bad.

To be fair I believe part of it has to do with Competitive player's willingness to completely change their armies.

As a casual player, I don't want to get rid of my Militia squads. I want to be able to use them and still have a chance to win the game.

Thing is, in the current state of things, I cant!

Sir Heckington wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Renegades and Heretics are utterly unplayable without allies.

Until they get their update.

Heh. Yeah. That, Bannerlord and half life 3. All be really fun in 2050.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Renegades and Heretics are utterly unplayable without allies.

Until they get their update.

Maybe when FW stops being such a mess (and it sadly is a big fecking mess right now).

Yeah. It's disappointing.

I guess you haven't been following the news?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Renegades and Heretics are utterly unplayable without allies.

Until they get their update.

Heh. Yeah. That, Bannerlord and half life 3. All be really fun in 2050.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Renegades and Heretics are utterly unplayable without allies.

Until they get their update.

Maybe when FW stops being such a mess (and it sadly is a big fecking mess right now).

Yeah. It's disappointing.

I guess you haven't been following the news?

Spoiler:

I have not! That gives me hope. Thanks for sharing.

Imperial Knights supporting hordes of guard is fluffy. Ynnari detachments with both DE and Eldar is fluffy in the current context. Genestealer Cults and Tyranids are fluffy. Almost every allied detachment is fluffy. Loyal 32 and knights are extremely fluffy. Fluff is not the matter. Everyone can play with allies in narrative play, but I think for tournaments, allies may/may not be banned. I think it's just gonna drag Eldar to the top of the curve again, guard fall a bit, Tau, perhaps Orks, and Necrons get better. But, many synergies will remain as competitive as ever. GW has an inherent problem with OP units that runs far beyond soup. A Min/Maxed 40K list will always be overpowered. Loyal 32 and knights is broken, DE and Eldar is broken, the best combos in the game will always be broken. I think there needs to be a complete rules overhaul for there to be positive change, as band-aid solutions such as banning allies only further exacerbates the problem.

Sir Heckington wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Actually it's just a mentality thing:


Competitive players: Okay, the game has changed, how do I win?

Casual players: I refuse to change or alter my expectations, the game is bad.

To be fair I believe part of it has to do with Competitive player's willingness to completely change their armies.

As a casual player, I don't want to get rid of my Militia squads. I want to be able to use them and still have a chance to win the game.

Thing is, in the current state of things, I cant!

But there will always be a casual player running some thing that isn't at the top of the power scale, who wants it to be what they consider viable. You can't cater to everyone in this regard. If you bring competitive stuff the game is actually very balanced. The faction representation in the top 50 at SoCal (4-2 or better) was impressive.

 Marmatag wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
No soup? What will the Imperium eat? Corpse rations?

Seriously though (and I'm only speaking in terms of competetive play), Marines would be unplayable, Knights would be low tier, Custodes might not even see the table, Eldar would be spanking everyone like it was 7th and generally the meta wouldn't be shifting around as much as it is currently.

Eldar without allies are mediocre.
Dark Eldar without allies are barely mediocre.
Ynnari exist only in the concept of allies.

I can't even with this place sometimes.

3rd at SoCal was pure DE with a SINGLE allied 135 pt. MODEL. Looks like an army being barely mediocre is irrelevant if it can be piloted to 5-0-1.

Lemondish wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
No soup? What will the Imperium eat? Corpse rations?

Seriously though (and I'm only speaking in terms of competetive play), Marines would be unplayable, Knights would be low tier, Custodes might not even see the table, Eldar would be spanking everyone like it was 7th and generally the meta wouldn't be shifting around as much as it is currently.

Eldar without allies are mediocre.
Dark Eldar without allies are barely mediocre.
Ynnari exist only in the concept of allies.

I can't even with this place sometimes.

3rd at SoCal was pure DE with a SINGLE allied 135 pt. MODEL. Looks like an army being barely mediocre is irrelevant if it can be piloted to 5-0-1.

Well that guy is a sexy genius but that's not really here nor there, without Doom + 2 deny the witch Dark Eldar really suffer.

 Marmatag wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Actually it's just a mentality thing:


Competitive players: Okay, the game has changed, how do I win?

Casual players: I refuse to change or alter my expectations, the game is bad.

To be fair I believe part of it has to do with Competitive player's willingness to completely change their armies.

As a casual player, I don't want to get rid of my Militia squads. I want to be able to use them and still have a chance to win the game.

Thing is, in the current state of things, I cant!

But there will always be a casual player running some thing that isn't at the top of the power scale, who wants it to be what they consider viable. You can't cater to everyone in this regard. If you bring competitive stuff the game is actually very balanced. The faction representation in the top 50 at SoCal (4-2 or better) was impressive.

Fair enough. Ideally I'd like to see detachments cost CP, and CP be based on point level. I think that's about all we need to fix soup.

Then it'd be about balancing individual units.

I really don't know Chaos. So I can't really think of them and have ignored them. I suspect Thousand Sons and Death Guard would be oka. Mono Alpha Legion would have issues.

IG, Eldar, Dark Eldar would be top tier. Probably with Tau, Knights, Orks and Tyranids being slightly rarer but still in with a chance.

SM with Bobby G are top tier too. All non UM and whatever flavour of Marine are doing worse down to Grey Knights.

Necrons are not doing well but slightly better to the point where if you had a lucky tournament they might do okay. Pure Ad Mech are probably in a position where they crush some games but lose horribly in others so winning a tournament is pretty unlikely.