Switch Theme:

Problem with 40k Balance  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
Repentia Mistress




Getting back on topic.
cjmate8 wrote:
WH40k is becoming increasingly difficult to balance. Recently, a lot of armies are getting stacking buffs, and I feel like this makes it more difficult to balance the game because the value of a unit ranges widely depending on the buffs available. This has always kind'of been in the game, but it's getting increasingly "more". I say more because I don't know whether this is a good or bad thing, it just is.

Here's an example: Repentia

Repentia are not, in themselves, broken; in fact, they're super mediocre with their base statline; however, you can make them broken:

1. Bloody Rose Benefits (+1 attack, -1ap)
2. Bloody Rose stratagem (+1 to wound)
3. The passion (Exploding 6s on unmodified wound rolls)
4. Missionary (+1 attack)
5. Desperate for Redemption (Fight twice)
6. Triumph of St. Katherine (+1 to hit)
7. Palatine/Superior (Re-roll wound rolls of 1)

You're not likely to have every single one of these go off at the same time, but it is something that if you could pull this off, you can one-hit anything in the game barring a warwound titan.

The problem is, just going on the unit's stats it isn't, in itself, broken. It's when you combo everything together that it gets out of hand.

And there's other stuff in the game that does this: Ork Boyz

1. Ghazghkull (+1 attack)
2. Choppa (+1 attack)
3 20+ unit (+1 attack)
4. Goffs (Re-rolling hit rolls of 1 + 6s generate extra attacks)
5. Waagh Banner/Lukky Stikk (+1 to hit)
6. Get Stukk in Ladz (Fight twice)
7. Skarboyz (+1 strength)
8. Overwhelming Green Tide (Bring the unit make at full size)

This isn't particularly broken because choppas don't have ap, but if they had ap, a unit of 30 doing this would one-hit a knight without the fight twice stratagem. Without any of these buffs, though, the unit is mediocre.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the solution isn't simply to increase the points of the unit, because what's making the unit good isn't the unit itself in many cases, but the thing buffing it. This makes it difficult to gauge the value of a unit on paper because there's so many external modifiers making the unit work. It also becomes an issue that the same buffs might break something else. Any Sister of Battle unit that gets released in the future has the potential to use most of the stuff that buffs Repentia, like the new Celestian Sacrosents. Same thing with Orkz. Any Ork infantry in the future can use waagh banner, ghazghkull and clan traits, so that has to be kept in mind when balancing those units.

I don't think this is bad for the game, but I do think it makes balancing an issue; and I feel like the game is adding a lot more of these things because most armies are getting a combat doctrine-like ability
I don't know it makes it that much harder. At least not for Sisters.

   
Made in gb
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran






I personally advocate changing stratagems to having a point cost, and you have to purchase them in advance pre-game. You can still only use one of each stratagem per turn/phase and to use it multiple times, you have to purchase it multiple times, with a max cap o 10% of game point total being on strats (100pts at 1000pt games etc).. It reduces the complexity of balancing command points, and how they can be refunded etc during a game/pre-game and with point cost, just make it all the same cost system. You still want to use all your cool toys and not reduce model count in a game? Fine, reduce all models points cost across all factions to accommodate this change, you then can have the same size armies at 2000pts with 200pts of strats to use.

It may not be popular but it's a hell of a lot easier to balance. I'd also throw away all re-roll based strats as well and turn them into a buff to hit/wound to speed up the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/03 09:52:26


My hobby instagram account: @the_shroud_of_vigilance
My Shroud of Vigilance Hobby update blog for me detailed updates and lore on the faction:
Blog 
   
Made in au
Repentia Mistress




 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I personally advocate changing stratagems to having a point cost, and you have to purchase them in advance pre-game. You can still only use one of each stratagem per turn/phase and to use it multiple times, you have to purchase it multiple times, with a max cap o 10% of game point total being on strats (100pts at 1000pt games etc).. It reduces the complexity of balancing command points, and how they can be refunded etc during a game/pre-game and with point cost, just make it all the same cost system. You still want to use all your cool toys and not reduce model count in a game? Fine, reduce all models points cost across all factions to accommodate this change, you then can have the same size armies at 2000pts with 200pts of strats to use.

It may not be popular but it's a hell of a lot easier to balance. I'd also throw away all re-roll based strats as well and turn them into a buff to hit/wound to speed up the game.
That's just wargear
   
Made in gb
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran






Lammia wrote:
 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I personally advocate changing stratagems to having a point cost, and you have to purchase them in advance pre-game. You can still only use one of each stratagem per turn/phase and to use it multiple times, you have to purchase it multiple times, with a max cap o 10% of game point total being on strats (100pts at 1000pt games etc).. It reduces the complexity of balancing command points, and how they can be refunded etc during a game/pre-game and with point cost, just make it all the same cost system. You still want to use all your cool toys and not reduce model count in a game? Fine, reduce all models points cost across all factions to accommodate this change, you then can have the same size armies at 2000pts with 200pts of strats to use.

It may not be popular but it's a hell of a lot easier to balance. I'd also throw away all re-roll based strats as well and turn them into a buff to hit/wound to speed up the game.
That's just wargear


Sort of, but a little more flexible. Rather than purchasing the wargear for a specific unit, you purchase the strat for the army and it can be used on any unit capable of using it, and only once per battle, whereas wargear is purchased for a specific unit to use and only that unit.

Transhuman for example, it could be bough pre-game for x points and used at any point by any unit eligible to use it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/03 10:01:32


 
   
Made in au
Repentia Mistress




 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Lammia wrote:
 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I personally advocate changing stratagems to having a point cost, and you have to purchase them in advance pre-game. You can still only use one of each stratagem per turn/phase and to use it multiple times, you have to purchase it multiple times, with a max cap o 10% of game point total being on strats (100pts at 1000pt games etc).. It reduces the complexity of balancing command points, and how they can be refunded etc during a game/pre-game and with point cost, just make it all the same cost system. You still want to use all your cool toys and not reduce model count in a game? Fine, reduce all models points cost across all factions to accommodate this change, you then can have the same size armies at 2000pts with 200pts of strats to use.

It may not be popular but it's a hell of a lot easier to balance. I'd also throw away all re-roll based strats as well and turn them into a buff to hit/wound to speed up the game.
That's just wargear


Sort of, but a little more flexible. Rather than purchasing the wargear for a specific unit, you purchase the strat for the army and it can be used on any unit capable of using it, and only once per battle, whereas wargear is purchased for a specific unit to use and only that unit.

Transhuman for example, it could be bough pre-game for x points and used at any point by any unit eligible to use it.
There's already enough dud options in the books, no need to add more.

It's actually better limit the eligible units.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

Synergy between units is great, but imo 9th goes way too far.
You need the right unit, with the character buff, with the right warlord trait, with the right relic, and you need to buy the right pre-game strategem, and you need to pop the right strategem at the right time.

You used to just be able to fire up Battlescribe, at a few units. You selected characters that complemented your units and you selected units that mutually supported one another, but you could take list building at face value.
That also meant you could take your opponent's army at face value.
I think that's very important. I might only play that particular army once until it gets a major update, it's just not possible for me to get a good understanding of what my opponent is capable of in 9th, like not even remotely possible.
I need to bring a printed reference sheet to every game just so I can get an idea of my own faction, since I don't play enough to memorise the two dozen strategems my army could feasibly use, and thats after cutting out the ones I won't.
   
Made in au
Repentia Mistress




 kirotheavenger wrote:
Synergy between units is great, but imo 9th goes way too far.
You need the right unit, with the character buff, with the right warlord trait, with the right relic, and you need to buy the right pre-game strategem, and you need to pop the right strategem at the right time.

You used to just be able to fire up Battlescribe, at a few units. You selected characters that complemented your units and you selected units that mutually supported one another, but you could take list building at face value.
That also meant you could take your opponent's army at face value.
I think that's very important. I might only play that particular army once until it gets a major update, it's just not possible for me to get a good understanding of what my opponent is capable of in 9th, like not even remotely possible.
I need to bring a printed reference sheet to every game just so I can get an idea of my own faction, since I don't play enough to memorise the two dozen strategems my army could feasibly use, and thats after cutting out the ones I won't.
you could ask the other player? Their Codex is open information. Take the time to read it pregame if it helps make the game better

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/03 10:26:25


 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Yeah, that maybe works if you play at home and have infinite time to play the game. When you play at the store, and the tables have reservations or on top of that you have to pay for the table use by the hour, you do not have the 60-120min time to read through the entire codex and noticing and memorising all rules interaction. Specially those that are less obvious. No to even mention what happens if your opponent plays a chaos or eldar soup army.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in au
Repentia Mistress




Karol wrote:
Yeah, that maybe works if you play at home and have infinite time to play the game. When you play at the store, and the tables have reservations or on top of that you have to pay for the table use by the hour, you do not have the 60-120min time to read through the entire codex and noticing and memorising all rules interaction. Specially those that are less obvious. No to even mention what happens if your opponent plays a chaos or eldar soup army.
you don't need to remember all the rules. Just the big ones. Skim the book to find the concealed gems. Or just let them tell you, save time

   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I can spent easily an hour at home before a game revising my own army.

If I have to ask my opponent to explain everything to me it'll take ages.
Not only that, but it'll go totally over my head, so even if my opponent explains that character A gives buff N to unit X just gets lost amongst the noise of mediocre abilities until I get slapped by it and lose a crucial unit I 'knew' was safe, or similar.

You didn't need to bother with that in 5th edition (I avoid saying 6/7th because they had similar shenigans) because everything was much simpler. An anti-infantry unit was good against infantry, it couldn't pop a strat and suddenly compete with most anti-tank units for melting heavy armour.

I don't think that makes the game any the lesser. In fact, I think that's so much better because it's down to who can use their units better, not who can stack the best buffs and/or strats.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Lammia wrote:
Karol wrote:
Yeah, that maybe works if you play at home and have infinite time to play the game. When you play at the store, and the tables have reservations or on top of that you have to pay for the table use by the hour, you do not have the 60-120min time to read through the entire codex and noticing and memorising all rules interaction. Specially those that are less obvious. No to even mention what happens if your opponent plays a chaos or eldar soup army.
you don't need to remember all the rules. Just the big ones. Skim the book to find the concealed gems. Or just let them tell you, save time


Yeah, go try to "skim" the three books needed to play GK and remember the interactions. And why should the opponent tell you the army rules before the game? They are not required to do it, they only have to anwser specific asked questions. They can even tell you that a unit moved 6" , if you just ask for the movment stat, not mentioning to you that they play Lucius and the character behind the unit you just asked about can teleport them anywhere on to the table not closer then 9" away from your dudes. And if your opponent says he didn't know you could do that, it is first of all their turn, which means it is too late for take backs, plus they can always say that they thought the rule was so abviouse the question was there as a joke, to play the clock or ment to make them. Try going through the FAQ, errata spread over multiple section, a WD with Inari rules and a codex for CWE in a shorter time then an hour. Specially when you play against the army the first time. You can't even list check them, because lists checks are done after the game.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Lammia wrote:
 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I personally advocate changing stratagems to having a point cost, and you have to purchase them in advance pre-game. You can still only use one of each stratagem per turn/phase and to use it multiple times, you have to purchase it multiple times, with a max cap o 10% of game point total being on strats (100pts at 1000pt games etc).. It reduces the complexity of balancing command points, and how they can be refunded etc during a game/pre-game and with point cost, just make it all the same cost system. You still want to use all your cool toys and not reduce model count in a game? Fine, reduce all models points cost across all factions to accommodate this change, you then can have the same size armies at 2000pts with 200pts of strats to use.

It may not be popular but it's a hell of a lot easier to balance. I'd also throw away all re-roll based strats as well and turn them into a buff to hit/wound to speed up the game.
That's just wargear


Sort of, but a little more flexible. Rather than purchasing the wargear for a specific unit, you purchase the strat for the army and it can be used on any unit capable of using it, and only once per battle, whereas wargear is purchased for a specific unit to use and only that unit.

Transhuman for example, it could be bough pre-game for x points and used at any point by any unit eligible to use it.


That's still just wargear.

The whole point of stratagems is that they are decisions made during the game, based on the game state, rather before the game based on math and internet wisdom. You are trying to take that away.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/03 11:11:43


 
   
Made in au
Repentia Mistress




Karol wrote:
Lammia wrote:
Karol wrote:
Yeah, that maybe works if you play at home and have infinite time to play the game. When you play at the store, and the tables have reservations or on top of that you have to pay for the table use by the hour, you do not have the 60-120min time to read through the entire codex and noticing and memorising all rules interaction. Specially those that are less obvious. No to even mention what happens if your opponent plays a chaos or eldar soup army.
you don't need to remember all the rules. Just the big ones. Skim the book to find the concealed gems. Or just let them tell you, save time


Yeah, go try to "skim" the three books needed to play GK and remember the interactions. And why should the opponent tell you the army rules before the game? They are not required to do it, they only have to anwser specific asked questions. They can even tell you that a unit moved 6" , if you just ask for the movment stat, not mentioning to you that they play Lucius and the character behind the unit you just asked about can teleport them anywhere on to the table not closer then 9" away from your dudes. And if your opponent says he didn't know you could do that, it is first of all their turn, which means it is too late for take backs, plus they can always say that they thought the rule was so abviouse the question was there as a joke, to play the clock or ment to make them. Try going through the FAQ, errata spread over multiple section, a WD with Inari rules and a codex for CWE in a shorter time then an hour. Specially when you play against the army the first time. You can't even list check them, because lists checks are done after the game.
check strats, relevent psy powers, warlord trait and relic plus any unit you have no idea about and the army rules.

Getting it done in a timely and effective way is a skill and a harder one to master, but it's a better use of time than learning all the books.

They don't have to give you complex details, but asking the right questions (e.g. how quickly can this unit cross the table?) and being painful enough to spend 10 minutes before a game learning their rules should hopefully be enough to get to a point that you can both enjoy the game. Rather than losing/winning to dodgy wombo combo that someone tricked into pulling off.

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
You need the right unit, with the character buff, with the right warlord trait, with the right relic, and you need to buy the right pre-game strategem, and you need to pop the right strategem at the right time.
It's like GW took a look at the bloated, top-heavy mess that 3rd Ed was right before it's end and said "Let's start 9th that way!".

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Halifax

 AnomanderRake wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
...Not as funny as people who think 8th or 9th's problems are even a 10th of what 7th's were. If you were here for that and honestly believe THIS is somehow 'getting worse' than 7th, the problem is with you getting whiny-er not the game.


I forgot to include that on my list of "useless platitudes the 40k community likes to spout". "But it's better than 7th!" isn't a justification for anything, even in the rare cases where it's true.

To be fair, the Fists only suck in comparison to the Night Lords and the Blood Angels.

   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Lammia 798722 11139498 wrote:]check strats, relevent psy powers, warlord trait and relic plus any unit you have no idea about and the army rules.

Getting it done in a timely and effective way is a skill and a harder one to master, but it's a better use of time than learning all the books.

They don't have to give you complex details, but asking the right questions (e.g. how quickly can this unit cross the table?) and being painful enough to spend 10 minutes before a game learning their rules should hopefully be enough to get to a point that you can both enjoy the game. Rather than losing/winning to dodgy wombo combo that someone tricked into pulling off.


You are assuming the other person wants to co operate and give up his armies strenghts. They can very well just say, if you don't want to play, I can play someone that wants to play.
And you know very well, that it is not 10min before the game. Going over the GK codex, GK FAQ, the PA book for GK takes a lot longer and that is before any changes in CA and similar stuff. There is no core stuff you can just skim over, you have to go over tides, character changes including a whole new psychic power tree only characters can use. And this is no combos just strickt one army rules spread over multiple books. It takes time to check even if you have expiriance with the game. If you have little or non, then to do it in 10min, you are asking for eidetic memory as a pre requisit to start playing w40k.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in au
Repentia Mistress




Karol wrote:
Lammia 798722 11139498 wrote:]check strats, relevent psy powers, warlord trait and relic plus any unit you have no idea about and the army rules.

Getting it done in a timely and effective way is a skill and a harder one to master, but it's a better use of time than learning all the books.

They don't have to give you complex details, but asking the right questions (e.g. how quickly can this unit cross the table?) and being painful enough to spend 10 minutes before a game learning their rules should hopefully be enough to get to a point that you can both enjoy the game. Rather than losing/winning to dodgy wombo combo that someone tricked into pulling off.


You are assuming the other person wants to co operate and give up his armies strenghts. They can very well just say, if you don't want to play, I can play someone that wants to play.
And you know very well, that it is not 10min before the game. Going over the GK codex, GK FAQ, the PA book for GK takes a lot longer and that is before any changes in CA and similar stuff. There is no core stuff you can just skim over, you have to go over tides, character changes including a whole new psychic power tree only characters can use. And this is no combos just strickt one army rules spread over multiple books. It takes time to check even if you have expiriance with the game. If you have little or non, then to do it in 10min, you are asking for eidetic memory as a pre requisit to start playing w40k.
Sure they can, if they are that bent on WaaC then there's not much you can do to make them a better player and you have to choose wether or not it's worth playing that game.

Being aware of Tides, strats for units taken and what the powers that have been taken do is all I need to play a good game vs GK. It's a big learning curve to figure out in an reasonable time, I wouldn't expect someone with little experience with the game to know.(which is why I tey to tell them the important stuff beforehand) But the good news is players can learn and grow

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Does anyone believe 40K can be balanced wi the out a total overhaul.

Balance should be simply achieve by consistent application of points to units but that for some reason isn’t achievable
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





Tyel wrote:
Isn't this just a rehash of the canned strategy debate? Should you have to take character A with unit B using Relic C using strategem D to do massive damage? Or should you just be able to take Character A and unit B in isolation and they have no rules synergy between each other at all? (Also ban stratagems because apparently 4 years in they are still too complicated or something.)

In practice I'm not sure its an issue of "balance", unless the combo is out of whack with other combos employed across the game. The fact running unsupported Repentia in the wrong chapter is "bad" isn't necesarilly a balance problem. Reductio ad absurdium perhaps - but I think the logic for it being bad ultimately leads to "I should be able to bring 2k points of anything and have a 50% chance to win versus 2k points of anything" - and that can't happen unless there are no real choices.
Yes, ban all of those things. That kind of game design is just strategy being dictated and outlined to the player through rules interactions. The strategy becomes those interactions, and thus the games conclusion become increasingly determined in the list building and theory crafting stage. Balance is even worse now than it was before, because the game itself is designed in order to create a meta, and cater to the kinds of players interested in that.

They want people to continue to interact with their rules even when they're not playing them. Implementing a meta is a great way to do that, as it gives players a problem to "solve". However once that problem is solved, there needs to be a shakeup or the "meta becomes stale". They intentionally create metas and then change them, not only to create more sales, but also to prevent "the problem" from being solved for too long. Just look at the predominant conversations on this forum. It's all about theory crafting and meta discussion.

I had way more fun with 7th, bar cheesy lists, psycher shenanigans, and formations it was at it's core a better ruleset. I attribute that to a central philosophy that was not all about unique special rules for everything in the game. Just look at epic armageddon and tell me a gw 40k game can't have character and differentiation between the factions and still be a game that focuses on battlefield prowess.

This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2021/06/03 14:34:24


 
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I personally advocate changing stratagems to having a point cost, and you have to purchase them in advance pre-game. You can still only use one of each stratagem per turn/phase and to use it multiple times, you have to purchase it multiple times, with a max cap o 10% of game point total being on strats (100pts at 1000pt games etc).. It reduces the complexity of balancing command points, and how they can be refunded etc during a game/pre-game and with point cost, just make it all the same cost system. You still want to use all your cool toys and not reduce model count in a game? Fine, reduce all models points cost across all factions to accommodate this change, you then can have the same size armies at 2000pts with 200pts of strats to use.

It may not be popular but it's a hell of a lot easier to balance. I'd also throw away all re-roll based strats as well and turn them into a buff to hit/wound to speed up the game.

I don't agree on stratagems being costed that way, but I would argue that there should be some kind of points cost associated with sub-faction rules. Like for a very loose example: Ultramarines adding a 50 point charge to the army, while Iron Hands might cost 60.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
Lammia wrote:
Karol wrote:
Yeah, that maybe works if you play at home and have infinite time to play the game. When you play at the store, and the tables have reservations or on top of that you have to pay for the table use by the hour, you do not have the 60-120min time to read through the entire codex and noticing and memorising all rules interaction. Specially those that are less obvious. No to even mention what happens if your opponent plays a chaos or eldar soup army.
you don't need to remember all the rules. Just the big ones. Skim the book to find the concealed gems. Or just let them tell you, save time


Yeah, go try to "skim" the three books needed to play GK and remember the interactions. And why should the opponent tell you the army rules before the game? They are not required to do it, they only have to anwser specific asked questions. They can even tell you that a unit moved 6" , if you just ask for the movment stat, not mentioning to you that they play Lucius and the character behind the unit you just asked about can teleport them anywhere on to the table not closer then 9" away from your dudes. And if your opponent says he didn't know you could do that, it is first of all their turn, which means it is too late for take backs, plus they can always say that they thought the rule was so abviouse the question was there as a joke, to play the clock or ment to make them. Try going through the FAQ, errata spread over multiple section, a WD with Inari rules and a codex for CWE in a shorter time then an hour. Specially when you play against the army the first time. You can't even list check them, because lists checks are done after the game.

Because if I'm going to spend 3+ hours playing a game, being open about the rules we're using and potential "gotchas" will make for a more interesting and fun game than just slapping people with surprises they weren't expecting? Plus close games are more fun for both players than curb stomping someone with a rules combo they didn't expect.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/03 15:38:30


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 ClockworkZion wrote:
 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I personally advocate changing stratagems to having a point cost, and you have to purchase them in advance pre-game. You can still only use one of each stratagem per turn/phase and to use it multiple times, you have to purchase it multiple times, with a max cap o 10% of game point total being on strats (100pts at 1000pt games etc).. It reduces the complexity of balancing command points, and how they can be refunded etc during a game/pre-game and with point cost, just make it all the same cost system. You still want to use all your cool toys and not reduce model count in a game? Fine, reduce all models points cost across all factions to accommodate this change, you then can have the same size armies at 2000pts with 200pts of strats to use.

It may not be popular but it's a hell of a lot easier to balance. I'd also throw away all re-roll based strats as well and turn them into a buff to hit/wound to speed up the game.

I don't agree on stratagems being costed that way, but I would argue that there should be some kind of points cost associated with faction rules. Like for a very loose example: Ultramarines adding a 50 point charge to the army, while Iron Hands might cost 60.
Not a bad idea in theory, but I don't think universally applying that point cost is a good idea at all. Not all units are going to be as affected to the same degree by the sub factions rules, some might not even be affected at all. I like the idea, but gw can't get points costs right as is, imagine trying to add another thing to put points onto.

Anyway, you'd just be shifting the focus from best sub faction, to most points efficient sub faction.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/03 15:36:15


 
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

mrFickle wrote:
Does anyone believe 40K can be balanced wi the out a total overhaul.

Balance should be simply achieve by consistent application of points to units but that for some reason isn’t achievable

Not all balance can be achieved through points adjustments. For example Dark Technomancers needed a rules adjustment to work, as do many units gathering dust on people's shelves. If it was statlines alone, sure you could just slap points changes onto things, but the more rules interactions a model can have the harder it is to dial in balance. Take the Repentia example, if they're only that good in Bloody Rose slapping a points hike on them doesn't really make sense when they're so much worse in other armies. The unit doesn't need to be charged for the strength of the sub-faction rules, but rather the army as a whole if we talk points balancing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Isn't this just a rehash of the canned strategy debate? Should you have to take character A with unit B using Relic C using strategem D to do massive damage? Or should you just be able to take Character A and unit B in isolation and they have no rules synergy between each other at all? (Also ban stratagems because apparently 4 years in they are still too complicated or something.)

In practice I'm not sure its an issue of "balance", unless the combo is out of whack with other combos employed across the game. The fact running unsupported Repentia in the wrong chapter is "bad" isn't necesarilly a balance problem. Reductio ad absurdium perhaps - but I think the logic for it being bad ultimately leads to "I should be able to bring 2k points of anything and have a 50% chance to win versus 2k points of anything" - and that can't happen unless there are no real choices.
Yes, ban all of those things. That kind of game design is just strategy being dictated and outlined to the player through rules interactions. The strategy becomes those interactions, and thus the games conclusion become increasingly determined in the list building and theory crafting stage. Balance is even worse now than it was before, because the game itself is designed in order to create a meta, and cater to the kinds of players interested in that.

They want people to continue to interact with their rules even when they're not playing them. Implementing a meta is a great way to do that, as it gives players a problem to "solve". However once that problem is solved, there needs to be a shakeup or the "meta becomes stale". They intentionally create metas and then change them, not only to create more sales, but also to prevent "the problem" from being solved for too long. Just look at the predominant conversations on this forum. It's all about theory crafting and meta discussion.

I had way more fun with 7th, bar cheesy lists, psycher shenanigans, and formations it was at it's core a better ruleset. I attribute that to a central philosophy that was not all about unique special rules for everything in the game. Just look at epic armageddon and tell me a gw 40k game can't have character and differentiation between the factions and still be a game that focuses on battlefield prowess.

I hate to break it to you, but games always have a meta. They don't have to design it to have one, one will naturally arise as players seek to optimize their playstyles and counter other player's playstyles.

40k is not a simulation game, which seems like what you want, and honestly I'd argue that it's better that way. When a game gets too in the weeds trying to simulate things on the table top you spend more time looking up charts than you do actually playing. I'd argue 40k now is more of a strategy wargame. You pick secondaries and strategy to build a strategy around, while not focusing on the more simulation elements (such as which way a vehicle is facing, or if a template clips that fifth model or not). Simulations work better on computers because a lot of the work load is taken out of the player's hands allowing them to focus on other things.

And 7th was very much about special rules and rules combos. We just called them "deathstars" back then. You need to take the rose tinted glasses off if you're going to be critical about the faults of the game now compared to those in the past.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I personally advocate changing stratagems to having a point cost, and you have to purchase them in advance pre-game. You can still only use one of each stratagem per turn/phase and to use it multiple times, you have to purchase it multiple times, with a max cap o 10% of game point total being on strats (100pts at 1000pt games etc).. It reduces the complexity of balancing command points, and how they can be refunded etc during a game/pre-game and with point cost, just make it all the same cost system. You still want to use all your cool toys and not reduce model count in a game? Fine, reduce all models points cost across all factions to accommodate this change, you then can have the same size armies at 2000pts with 200pts of strats to use.

It may not be popular but it's a hell of a lot easier to balance. I'd also throw away all re-roll based strats as well and turn them into a buff to hit/wound to speed up the game.

I don't agree on stratagems being costed that way, but I would argue that there should be some kind of points cost associated with faction rules. Like for a very loose example: Ultramarines adding a 50 point charge to the army, while Iron Hands might cost 60.
Not a bad idea in theory, but I don't think universally applying that point cost is a good idea at all. Not all units are going to be as affected to the same degree by the sub factions rules, some might not even be affected at all. I like the idea, but gw can't get points costs right as is, imagine trying to add another thing to put points onto.

Anyway, you'd just be shifting the focus from best sub faction, to most points efficient sub faction.

There is no perfect answer. And it's not like we can expect GW to print points sheets for every subfaction seperately, so a surcharge to the army as a whole would be the most realistic way to try and balance things if we look to points to reign in outliers over rewriting out of bounds rules.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/03 15:46:23


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 ClockworkZion wrote:
mrFickle wrote:
Does anyone believe 40K can be balanced wi the out a total overhaul.

Balance should be simply achieve by consistent application of points to units but that for some reason isn’t achievable

Not all balance can be achieved through points adjustments. For example Dark Technomancers needed a rules adjustment to work, as do many units gathering dust on people's shelves. If it was statlines alone, sure you could just slap points changes onto things, but the more rules interactions a model can have the harder it is to dial in balance. Take the Repentia example, if they're only that good in Bloody Rose slapping a points hike on them doesn't really make sense when they're so much worse in other armies. The unit doesn't need to be charged for the strength of the sub-faction rules, but rather the army as a whole if we talk points balancing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Isn't this just a rehash of the canned strategy debate? Should you have to take character A with unit B using Relic C using strategem D to do massive damage? Or should you just be able to take Character A and unit B in isolation and they have no rules synergy between each other at all? (Also ban stratagems because apparently 4 years in they are still too complicated or something.)

In practice I'm not sure its an issue of "balance", unless the combo is out of whack with other combos employed across the game. The fact running unsupported Repentia in the wrong chapter is "bad" isn't necesarilly a balance problem. Reductio ad absurdium perhaps - but I think the logic for it being bad ultimately leads to "I should be able to bring 2k points of anything and have a 50% chance to win versus 2k points of anything" - and that can't happen unless there are no real choices.
Yes, ban all of those things. That kind of game design is just strategy being dictated and outlined to the player through rules interactions. The strategy becomes those interactions, and thus the games conclusion become increasingly determined in the list building and theory crafting stage. Balance is even worse now than it was before, because the game itself is designed in order to create a meta, and cater to the kinds of players interested in that.

They want people to continue to interact with their rules even when they're not playing them. Implementing a meta is a great way to do that, as it gives players a problem to "solve". However once that problem is solved, there needs to be a shakeup or the "meta becomes stale". They intentionally create metas and then change them, not only to create more sales, but also to prevent "the problem" from being solved for too long. Just look at the predominant conversations on this forum. It's all about theory crafting and meta discussion.

I had way more fun with 7th, bar cheesy lists, psycher shenanigans, and formations it was at it's core a better ruleset. I attribute that to a central philosophy that was not all about unique special rules for everything in the game. Just look at epic armageddon and tell me a gw 40k game can't have character and differentiation between the factions and still be a game that focuses on battlefield prowess.

I hate to break it to you, but games always have a meta. They don't have to design it to have one, one will naturally arise as players seek to optimize their playstyles and counter other player's playstyles.

40k is not a simulation game, which seems like what you want, and honestly I'd argue that it's better that way. When a game gets too in the weeds trying to simulate things on the table top you spend more time looking up charts than you do actually playing. I'd argue 40k now is more of a strategy wargame. You pick secondaries and strategy to build a strategy around, while not focusing on the more simulation elements (such as which way a vehicle is facing, or if a template clips that fifth model or not). Simulations work better on computers because a lot of the work load is taken out of the player's hands allowing them to focus on other things.

And 7th was very much about special rules and rules combos. We just called them "deathstars" back then. You need to take the rose tinted glasses off if you're going to be critical about the faults of the game now compared to those in the past.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I personally advocate changing stratagems to having a point cost, and you have to purchase them in advance pre-game. You can still only use one of each stratagem per turn/phase and to use it multiple times, you have to purchase it multiple times, with a max cap o 10% of game point total being on strats (100pts at 1000pt games etc).. It reduces the complexity of balancing command points, and how they can be refunded etc during a game/pre-game and with point cost, just make it all the same cost system. You still want to use all your cool toys and not reduce model count in a game? Fine, reduce all models points cost across all factions to accommodate this change, you then can have the same size armies at 2000pts with 200pts of strats to use.

It may not be popular but it's a hell of a lot easier to balance. I'd also throw away all re-roll based strats as well and turn them into a buff to hit/wound to speed up the game.

I don't agree on stratagems being costed that way, but I would argue that there should be some kind of points cost associated with faction rules. Like for a very loose example: Ultramarines adding a 50 point charge to the army, while Iron Hands might cost 60.
Not a bad idea in theory, but I don't think universally applying that point cost is a good idea at all. Not all units are going to be as affected to the same degree by the sub factions rules, some might not even be affected at all. I like the idea, but gw can't get points costs right as is, imagine trying to add another thing to put points onto.

Anyway, you'd just be shifting the focus from best sub faction, to most points efficient sub faction.

There is no perfect answer. And it's not like we can expect GW to print points sheets for every subfaction seperately, so a surcharge to the army as a whole would be the most realistic way to try and balance things if we look to points to reign in outliers over rewriting out of bounds rules.
In no way shape or form am I asking for advanced squad leader. I'm asking for a ruleset that attempts to focus on the game, not on what you bring to it. 40k has swung way too hard toward buffs, on buffs on buffs, and this unit interacting with this specific unit in your army to make them 40% more powerful. 7th was not like that at all except for UNINTENTIONAL rules interactions.

You're absolutely right about 7th edition having death stars, but the game wasn't intentionally designed around them. Formations and death stars were also easier to restrict as they weren't the kind of interactions that the game was fundamentally based around. 40k is currently all about the kind of interactions that lead to the very worst parts of 7th, except instead of trying to fix them, they gave up and just dialed it up to 11.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/03 16:16:41


 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 ClockworkZion wrote:
...if I'm going to spend 3+ hours playing a game, being open about the rules we're using and potential "gotchas" will make for a more interesting and fun game than just slapping people with surprises they weren't expecting? Plus close games are more fun for both players than curb stomping someone with a rules combo they didn't expect.

Karol doesn't play for fun, he plays for the sunk cost fallacy.
Not all balance can be achieved through points adjustments. For example Dark Technomancers...

Just increase the cost of Dark Technomancer weapons, in the same way Characters used to pay more for storm shields. This risks that flamers that are supposed to be good on Salamanders ends up being bad because of the extra cost.
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

 vict0988 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
...if I'm going to spend 3+ hours playing a game, being open about the rules we're using and potential "gotchas" will make for a more interesting and fun game than just slapping people with surprises they weren't expecting? Plus close games are more fun for both players than curb stomping someone with a rules combo they didn't expect.

Karol doesn't play for fun, he plays for the sunk cost fallacy.
Not all balance can be achieved through points adjustments. For example Dark Technomancers...

Just increase the cost of Dark Technomancer weapons, in the same way Characters used to pay more for storm shields. This risks that flamers that are supposed to be good on Salamanders ends up being bad because of the extra cost.

Not impossible but then we'd need to split off stuff like melee units under melee chapter tactics for the same reason. Like it makes sense, but we have to give up some level of complexity when we have to do all the book keeping ourselves.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Spoiler:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
mrFickle wrote:
Does anyone believe 40K can be balanced wi the out a total overhaul.

Balance should be simply achieve by consistent application of points to units but that for some reason isn’t achievable

Not all balance can be achieved through points adjustments. For example Dark Technomancers needed a rules adjustment to work, as do many units gathering dust on people's shelves. If it was statlines alone, sure you could just slap points changes onto things, but the more rules interactions a model can have the harder it is to dial in balance. Take the Repentia example, if they're only that good in Bloody Rose slapping a points hike on them doesn't really make sense when they're so much worse in other armies. The unit doesn't need to be charged for the strength of the sub-faction rules, but rather the army as a whole if we talk points balancing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Isn't this just a rehash of the canned strategy debate? Should you have to take character A with unit B using Relic C using strategem D to do massive damage? Or should you just be able to take Character A and unit B in isolation and they have no rules synergy between each other at all? (Also ban stratagems because apparently 4 years in they are still too complicated or something.)

In practice I'm not sure its an issue of "balance", unless the combo is out of whack with other combos employed across the game. The fact running unsupported Repentia in the wrong chapter is "bad" isn't necesarilly a balance problem. Reductio ad absurdium perhaps - but I think the logic for it being bad ultimately leads to "I should be able to bring 2k points of anything and have a 50% chance to win versus 2k points of anything" - and that can't happen unless there are no real choices.
Yes, ban all of those things. That kind of game design is just strategy being dictated and outlined to the player through rules interactions. The strategy becomes those interactions, and thus the games conclusion become increasingly determined in the list building and theory crafting stage. Balance is even worse now than it was before, because the game itself is designed in order to create a meta, and cater to the kinds of players interested in that.

They want people to continue to interact with their rules even when they're not playing them. Implementing a meta is a great way to do that, as it gives players a problem to "solve". However once that problem is solved, there needs to be a shakeup or the "meta becomes stale". They intentionally create metas and then change them, not only to create more sales, but also to prevent "the problem" from being solved for too long. Just look at the predominant conversations on this forum. It's all about theory crafting and meta discussion.

I had way more fun with 7th, bar cheesy lists, psycher shenanigans, and formations it was at it's core a better ruleset. I attribute that to a central philosophy that was not all about unique special rules for everything in the game. Just look at epic armageddon and tell me a gw 40k game can't have character and differentiation between the factions and still be a game that focuses on battlefield prowess.

I hate to break it to you, but games always have a meta. They don't have to design it to have one, one will naturally arise as players seek to optimize their playstyles and counter other player's playstyles.

40k is not a simulation game, which seems like what you want, and honestly I'd argue that it's better that way. When a game gets too in the weeds trying to simulate things on the table top you spend more time looking up charts than you do actually playing. I'd argue 40k now is more of a strategy wargame. You pick secondaries and strategy to build a strategy around, while not focusing on the more simulation elements (such as which way a vehicle is facing, or if a template clips that fifth model or not). Simulations work better on computers because a lot of the work load is taken out of the player's hands allowing them to focus on other things.

And 7th was very much about special rules and rules combos. We just called them "deathstars" back then. You need to take the rose tinted glasses off if you're going to be critical about the faults of the game now compared to those in the past.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I personally advocate changing stratagems to having a point cost, and you have to purchase them in advance pre-game. You can still only use one of each stratagem per turn/phase and to use it multiple times, you have to purchase it multiple times, with a max cap o 10% of game point total being on strats (100pts at 1000pt games etc).. It reduces the complexity of balancing command points, and how they can be refunded etc during a game/pre-game and with point cost, just make it all the same cost system. You still want to use all your cool toys and not reduce model count in a game? Fine, reduce all models points cost across all factions to accommodate this change, you then can have the same size armies at 2000pts with 200pts of strats to use.

It may not be popular but it's a hell of a lot easier to balance. I'd also throw away all re-roll based strats as well and turn them into a buff to hit/wound to speed up the game.

I don't agree on stratagems being costed that way, but I would argue that there should be some kind of points cost associated with faction rules. Like for a very loose example: Ultramarines adding a 50 point charge to the army, while Iron Hands might cost 60.
Not a bad idea in theory, but I don't think universally applying that point cost is a good idea at all. Not all units are going to be as affected to the same degree by the sub factions rules, some might not even be affected at all. I like the idea, but gw can't get points costs right as is, imagine trying to add another thing to put points onto.

Anyway, you'd just be shifting the focus from best sub faction, to most points efficient sub faction.

There is no perfect answer. And it's not like we can expect GW to print points sheets for every subfaction seperately, so a surcharge to the army as a whole would be the most realistic way to try and balance things if we look to points to reign in outliers over rewriting out of bounds rules.
In no way shape or form am I asking for advanced squad leader. I'm asking for a ruleset that attempts to focus on the game, not on what you bring to it. 40k has swung way too hard toward buffs, on buffs on buffs, and this unit interacting with this specific unit in your army to make them 40% more powerful. 7th was not like that at all except for UNINTENTIONAL rules interactions.

You're absolutely right about 7th edition having death stars, but the game wasn't intentionally designed around them. Formations and death stars were also easier to restrict as they weren't the kind of interactions that the game was fundamentally based around. 40k is currently all about the kind of interactions that lead to the very worst parts of 7th, except instead of trying to fix them, they gave up and just dialed it up to 11.


If you stripped away everything that currently bloats 9th (subfaction traits, purity bonuses, crazy strat combos, heck throw relics and traits in there if you wanna) and stripped away everything that bloated 7th (formations, decurions, and lets say relics and traits since we included those in 9th/8th too)

you'd end up with 7th ed being a system that mechanically...

1) relies almost entirely on "all or nothing" arbitrary breakpoints that essentially end discussion. The AP stat is either completely useless, or completely denies armor saves. you either get cover, or your opponent has the very common ignores cover USR that completely denies it. You either can take hits up until your Wounds stat, or your Wounds stat gets completely invalidated by instant death or getting doubled out. You pen a vehicle, you've got a 1 in 6 chance (or better) of instantly blowing it off the map.

2) has its best mission set in the completely random Maelstrom of War card deck. Hope you don't draw "secure the objective on your opponent's side of the map" while he draws "secure the objective you're already on"!

3) features the ever-popular 300pt breakpoint of "you are a superheavy now, you get 56,230,235 special rules that make you utterly invincible and capable of killing god" where 1 300pt wraithknight can easily take on 3-4 270pt gorkanauts. and don't forget your old pal everyone's favorite Strength D!

4) has a totally random psychic power system that features powers that vary in effectiveness from "functional invulnerability to almost anything" (Invisibility) to "basically does nothing at all" (several different powers)

5) incredibly samey statlines for a whole swathe of units in the game, leading to a system that is incredibly easy to 'solve' via the optimal statline of "many shots, strength 6, AP-"

9th at its core in my opinion, obviously others are allowed to have their own opinions and this is just mine, but in my opinion is fundamentally a better, healthier game than 7th. Both have their pointless layers of gakky bloat that I wish I could just blast away with a torch (and frequently do, when my opponents dont mind just ignoring some of the layers of rules) but when you do that to 7th, you're just left with kind of a gakky, arbitrary, bad game system at its core.

Any system I prefer in 7th (morale, for example) Gw basically subverted and made pointless in such a way that you can't easily strip back. For the morale system, you've got the fact that baaaaaaaaasically every faction in the entire game just ignored it. So even if I dislike the core concept of 9ths morale system, at least it's...like, something? it's there? it may matter at some point and isn't just something you INCREDIBLY easily deal with in the strategy phase of the game so that it never comes up tactically?

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




What was a strenght D?

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 ClockworkZion wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
...if I'm going to spend 3+ hours playing a game, being open about the rules we're using and potential "gotchas" will make for a more interesting and fun game than just slapping people with surprises they weren't expecting? Plus close games are more fun for both players than curb stomping someone with a rules combo they didn't expect.

Karol doesn't play for fun, he plays for the sunk cost fallacy.
Not all balance can be achieved through points adjustments. For example Dark Technomancers...

Just increase the cost of Dark Technomancer weapons, in the same way Characters used to pay more for storm shields. This risks that flamers that are supposed to be good on Salamanders ends up being bad because of the extra cost.

Not impossible but then we'd need to split off stuff like melee units under melee chapter tactics for the same reason. Like it makes sense, but we have to give up some level of complexity when we have to do all the book keeping ourselves.


Yep, feth this solution.

The Drukhari subfaction traits are vastly better designed than most codexes' traits because of this subdivision.

Almost every wych trait is based around either mobility, or melee damage. Two factors. Covens, you've got durability, or melee damage. Kabals, you've got some shooting damage, some mobility, and some slight utility stuff like Range and better PFP.

That means a liquifier is a liquifier is a liquifier. No need to factor in this trait or that trait or this thing or that thing, it can just....be balanced and worthwhile at its point value.

Every unit that can receive a wych cult trait and cares about it meaningfully, gets some benefit from mobility, and some benefit from melee damage. That makes it vastly easier to balance Reavers, Hellions, Wyches and Succubi than like, blood angels Eliminators or Imperial Fists Assault Intercessors. There's no wych cult where any of the wych cult units are automatically bad, or automatically super crazy bonkers OP. Almost every unit enjoys some benefit and some trade-off no matter what trait you pick.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
What was a strenght D?


Strength D was basically the value above ten, where Gw just shrugged and said "I dunno, it's like super powerful and strong and kills things ultra good I guess."

Instead of rolling to wound normally, you'd roll on a special table:

1 - "Lucky Escape: The model is unharmed"
2-5 - "Solid Hit: The model suffers a penetrating hit that causes it to lose D3 Hull Points instead of 1." (Below it says that cover and invulnerable saves may be taken against a Solid Hit.)
6 - "Devastating Hit: The model suffers a penetrating hit that causes it to lose D6+6 Hull Points instead of 1. No saves of any kind are allowed against this hit."

(in 7th edition in their infinite wisdom gw decided every vehicle in the entire game should have 2, 3, or 4 hit points in addition to the Magical Table of Did You Just Instantly Explode, so rolling a 2+ on a D weapon would almost always instantly demolish whatever you were chucking it at)

Anything past the 300-point "Superheavy Line" didn't necessarily have access to Strength D weaponry, most did like the Knight chainsword and glove were both D, the big cannons and the sword on the wraithknight were D, the stompa's chainsword was D, many of the big guns on the baneblade chassis were D, but ALL superheavies would explode with a pie plate that was literally no exaggeration like a plate you would see at a dinner table.

It had three rings, the center one which was the size of a normal large blast weapon, was Strength D. Also, all superheavies after making their normal melee attacks, would make D3 "Stomp Attacks".

Stomp attacks were not Strength D but instead used their own fun table, of which the result for a 6 was literally "everything the small blast template is touching is removed from play, no saves or abilities allowed"

This, and the durability rules superheavies got that made them totally immune to the vehicle damage table, was why 1 300 point wraithknight or like 350 point imperial knight, could easily get into a fistfight with 3-4 not-quite-superheavies like giant nid monsters, orkanauts, dreadknights whatever and easily beat in their faces. The knight would roll up to them, make 2 of its Strength D attacks against each one, go "welp, look, I rolled a 2+ on both hits, so you take 2d3 hull points off your total of....three, and I get two extra rolls on the damage table with a 50% chance of instantly killing you as well!" and then because it was immune to the VDT and the gorkanaut's melee weapons could only ever do 1hp of damage no matter what, it would survive and then just make D3 stomp rolls fishing for the 6 result of "you're instantly dead no rules allowed"

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/03 16:49:27


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

Karol wrote:
What was a strenght D?

Remove from game with no saves allowed IIRC.

EDIT: Missed that it was answered well before I saw the post.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/03 16:46:13


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 ClockworkZion wrote:
Karol wrote:
What was a strenght D?

Remove from game with no saves allowed IIRC.

EDIT: Missed that it was answered well before I saw the post.


^you're thinking of earlier editions like fifth, where strength D was literally just "boop you're dead" on a 2+. I believe if it hit a vehicle it automatically caused an Explodes result, and the only way you could even possibly survive would be by being another superheavy, where you're immune to the vehicle damage table.

In 7th, they softened up the rules for D, and consequently gave it to a looooooooooooooooot more gak, mostly every weapon the eldar had called "D-something" because "hurr durr da lore says it be a D weaponz, how could dat be imbalance????"

of course, you also had stuff like the old ork shokk attack table, where the "12" result was "everything under a large blast template is instantly removed from play no rules allowed" as well.

Oh, and Sweeping Advances in melee, too. After any round of melee, if you happened to have the misfortune of being one of the few factions/units that cared about morale, you'd roll 2d6, subtracting the amount of casualties you took, and if you failed it you'd roll off with your opponent and if he won, you'd get the whole unit instantly kersploded.

I remember my favorite "holy gak" moments from 7th edition was with a Harlequin Solitaire charging a guard conscript platoon blob. in 7th to ignore the morale portion of the game, every large unit of guardsmen would always have either a commissar or a ministorum priest attached, because they gave you morale immunity and they were like 30pts. My solitaire charges in, and of course he's gonna refuse the challenge so I don't bother to issue one, and instead I try using one of 7th ed's many extremely niche, almost totally ignorable special rules - "Precision Blows" which allows you to pick the target in your opponent's unit if your melee attacks hit on a 6. I get enough 6s with his attacks to kill the commissar and like 2-3 more guardsmen, and then the solitaire survives their return swings with 1 wound left and sweeping advances instantly killing 42 guardsmen off the map.

Me and my opponent were basically in tears laughing at how stupid it was for this one little clown to just be leaping and bouncing through an entire platoon of guardsmen, murdering every single one in a fraction of a second.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/03 17:00:09


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: