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.

i dislike cheese greatly. I like to play games where tactics count for more than printing off the newest goofy netlist. Looking at the usual BS tourney players come up with, it's always the same formula, spam cheap unit x, plop 100 models on table and go, "you can't kill that many, I win, good game." Boring. But the current fix seems to be increasing point cost on fodder units, which then makes them lose their place as fodder, or simply be replaced by the next cheapest unit in the meta.
Instead of that, there's a real simple way to fix the broken nature of spammy cheese lists and get that BS out of the game while still having a place for fodder. Just create a new unit type, so in addition to hq, elite, troops, etc, make one called auxiliary or something that all fodder troops are in, conscripts, pox walkers, brimstone, cultists, scouts, ripper swarms, etc. And add the rule that only 1 auxiliary unit can be taken per 2 regular troop choices.
Then those units would have their rightful place in armies and we'd maybe start seeing actual armies as lists instead of boring cheese. You could then also make things like conscripts 2 points, cheap trash as they're meant to be, but also not capable of being the bulk of your army as they shouldn't be. Cheap units wouldn't break the game anymore and player s would *gasp* maybe have to play a game instead of just play list-printer 40k.

I like the idea, almost every faction has it too.

You are aware that Infantry Squads are troops, are the same price as Conscripts, are only 1 PPM more expensive than what Conscripts used to be, and are far better?

You are also aware that G-Man with Razorback and Devastator spam uses no chaff, or only minimal amounts?

Finally, you are aware that this would in no way stop all cheese, it would just make a new meta?

As JNAProductions said, and most of this "solutions" shown, with this you don't "destroy" the cheese, you just make it have a different form.

The meta will always exist. If you don't fix the balance problems unit by unit, it doesn't matter what type of arbitrary and superficial limitations you put on top.

the issue her would be that in the rock paper sissors lizard spock game that is warhammer 40k some armies can defeat a horde while some cannot. meanwhile some armies can only work as a horde (like orks) and any nerf to the ability to take a horde would in essence hurt already suffering armies. additionally several of your listed units are really not hard for most armies to deal with they just require taking less tank killing and more mass shots. for space marines mixing some heavy bolters in units and assault cannons on vehicles instead of lascannons everywhere works. though admittedly those heavy bolters will be useless in a fight against imperial knight house lists. That is why I like power level where both players know what they will play before putting equipment on usually the people who will want this kind of game were not likely to bring cheese anyway though to be honest). I would have preferred GW in making 8th to make all weapons on a unit the same cost in a category and just rebalance them. Example a lascannon retains current profile, same with missile launcher, but make the heavy bolter spew out enough shots to equal the points of both (likely 5-6 shots, or inversely keep heavy 3 heavy bolter and bring lascannon and missile down to D3 dmg) then one could decide when dropping the unit what heavy weapon they have issued based on available intelligence, or if they paid for a special weapon what special weapon they have.

The solution is just to have the points costs be appropriate.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
the issue her would be that in the rock paper sissors lizard spock game that is warhammer 40k some armies can defeat a horde while some cannot. meanwhile some armies can only work as a horde (like orks) and any nerf to the ability to take a horde would in essence hurt already suffering armies. additionally several of your listed units are really not hard for most armies to deal with they just require taking less tank killing and more mass shots. for space marines mixing some heavy bolters in units and assault cannons on vehicles instead of lascannons everywhere works. though admittedly those heavy bolters will be useless in a fight against imperial knight house lists. That is why I like power level where both players know what they will play before putting equipment on usually the people who will want this kind of game were not likely to bring cheese anyway though to be honest). I would have preferred GW in making 8th to make all weapons on a unit the same cost in a category and just rebalance them. Example a lascannon retains current profile, same with missile launcher, but make the heavy bolter spew out enough shots to equal the points of both (likely 5-6 shots, or inversely keep heavy 3 heavy bolter and bring lascannon and missile down to D3 dmg) then one could decide when dropping the unit what heavy weapon they have issued based on available intelligence, or if they paid for a special weapon what special weapon they have.

I wouldn't see ork boys as being designated auxiliary units, they're the core of an ork army. I didn't mean every cheap unit, I meant every unit that should be auxilury to the main force, that shouldn't form the bulk of any army.

Tournament lists primarily seek to overwhelm the wound mechanic in some manner, the screens are there to give them enough time to accomplish that. They aren't winning these games because you can't kill all their scrubs, they're winning because they're pumping out more wounds.

This will not address that issue.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You are aware that Infantry Squads are troops, are the same price as Conscripts, are only 1 PPM more expensive than what Conscripts used to be, and are far better?

You are also aware that G-Man with Razorback and Devastator spam uses no chaff, or only minimal amounts?

Finally, you are aware that this would in no way stop all cheese, it would just make a new meta?

You are aware that the conscripts points were increased which is why they stopped being as spammable, and is exactly the type of scenario my suggestion would have addressed more eliquntly than simply increasing the points and passing the buck to the next cheapest unit fodder?

You are aware I didn't but say this would fix every balance issue in the game and primarchs are a whole different problem right?
You are aware that stating your incorrect points in the form of condescending questions doesn't make you any less wrong aren't you?

If you're going to pretend that spamming whatever today's cheapest unit is isn't one of the biggest issues with balance, you're not going to get a serious reply because that's just laughable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
The solution is just to have the points costs be appropriate.

I disagree that it's all about points. Should conscripts cost the same as guardsman? Of course not, they're worse, but if you make them cheaper then they're too easy to cover an entire table with and win by default.
There's more to balance than point costs, army compesition is a huge piece to balance that I feel is oft ignored but is really where you can balance units away from cheese while still letting them be powerful and useful.

By far the strongest fodder unit in the game is the Imperial Guardsman, which is also the primary troop choice for Guard. What are you going to do about that?

Something similar could be said for Orks. Is it maximum one squad of boyz for every two squads of grots, or is it one squad of grots for every two blobs of boyz? In both cases you are talking about 90 models.

And should both Termagants and Hormagaunts be restricted to one unit per two unit of Genestealers? Really? And then there are chaos: Having to take two minimum squads of CSM for every 40-model blob of cultist is hardly what I would call a fix.

 Galas wrote:
As JNAProductions said, and most of this "solutions" shown, with this you don't "destroy" the cheese, you just make it have a different form.

The meta will always exist. If you don't fix the balance problems unit by unit, it doesn't matter what type of arbitrary and superficial limitations you put on top.

It's not arbitrary to say an army probably wouldn't be composed 90% of fresh recruits. No, your solution of simply increasing point cost gives the result you're saying, simply changing the cheese to the next cheapest fodder or spammable units. My suggestion balance allows for cheap and or highly point deficient units without th m breaking the game.

This will by no means stop cheesing. There are enough cheesy lists without fodder. easiest ex. 3 knights and magnus.
The problem is players. They blaim losing on there list in stead of there game and start looking for more powerfull lists until you arrive in a meta where games take 1-2 turns to know who wins, 3 turns max to complete a wipe. The only thing needed to start the creep is one competitve player that starts pounding everyone and you will see that in no time all lists will become more powerfull. People always find there list still okay. What other people play is cheese.

The game is designed to be "flawed" this way and I am sure that is the way it is meant to be.
If you do not like cheesy play, stay away from tournaments, and play with friends that are on the same wavelength concerning fun games.

The only way to stop min-maxing is making competitive lists balanced to eachother for all players. Players would not be allowed to make there own list.

Ex if you want to play ultramarines, you choose between 3 pre-made lists etc etc.

pismakron wrote:
By far the strongest fodder unit in the game is the Imperial Guardsman, which is also the primary troop choice for Guard. What are you going to do about that?

Something similar could be said for Orks. Is it maximum one squad of boyz for every two squads of grots, or is it one squad of grots for every two blobs of boyz? In both cases you are talking about 90 models.

And should both Termagants and Hormagaunts be restricted to one unit per two unit of Genestealers? Really? And then there are chaos: Having to take two minimum squads of CSM for every 40-model blob of cultist is hardly what I would call a fix.

I wouldn't touch guardsman or ork boys, you seem to be misunderstanding for the sake of exaggeration. You're trying to twist what I said into an over simplistic "cheap units" then stretching that definition to argue against something I didn't say. Which what you consider "cheap" is arbitrary. No, what I mean is fodder units, the things that shouldn't be spammable because as I said, shouldn't form the bulk of an army, such as those things I listed.
An imperial guard army obviously contains a lot of guardsman, an ork army obviously contains a lot of boys, don't be silly. Now a guardsman army shouldn't be 90% conscripts and an ork army shouldn't be 90% grots.

Danny slag wrote:


I disagree that it's all about points. Should conscripts cost the same as guardsman? Of course not, they're worse, but if you make them cheaper then they're too easy to cover an entire table with and win by default.

Well, guardsman should be 5 ppm at the bare minimum. They are the best infantry unit in the game by a pretty big margin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny slag wrote:

pismakron wrote:
By far the strongest fodder unit in the game is the Imperial Guardsman, which is also the primary troop choice for Guard. What are you going to do about that?

Something similar could be said for Orks. Is it maximum one squad of boyz for every two squads of grots, or is it one squad of grots for every two blobs of boyz? In both cases you are talking about 90 models.

And should both Termagants and Hormagaunts be restricted to one unit per two unit of Genestealers? Really? And then there are chaos: Having to take two minimum squads of CSM for every 40-model blob of cultist is hardly what I would call a fix.

I wouldn't touch guardsman or ork boys, you seem to be misunderstanding for the sake of exaggeration. You're trying to twist what I said into an over simplistic "cheap units" then stretching that definition to argue against something I didn't say. Which what you consider "cheap" is arbitrary. No, what I mean is fodder units, the things that shouldn't be spammable because as I said, shouldn't form the bulk of an army, such as those things I listed.
An imperial guard army obviously contains a lot of guardsman, an ork army obviously contains a lot of boys, don't be silly. Now a guardsman army shouldn't be 90% conscripts and an ork army shouldn't be 90% grots.

I don't think that there is anything arbitrary about it. Spamming Guardsman may be fluffy, but it is still a problem because Guardsmen are extremely durable and very killy at 4 ppm. So I really don't think your suggestion solves any problem that the game has. No one spams tzaangors or gretchin, because those units are pretty mediocre.

Danny slag wrote:

 Galas wrote:
As JNAProductions said, and most of this "solutions" shown, with this you don't "destroy" the cheese, you just make it have a different form.

The meta will always exist. If you don't fix the balance problems unit by unit, it doesn't matter what type of arbitrary and superficial limitations you put on top.

It's not arbitrary to say an army probably wouldn't be composed 90% of fresh recruits. No, your solution of simply increasing point cost gives the result you're saying, simply changing the cheese to the next cheapest fodder or spammable units. My suggestion balance allows for cheap and or highly point deficient units without th m breaking the game.

The problem with Conscripts is the same problem of Assault Marines vs Vanguard Veterans or Basilisk vs FW Earthshaker artillery. When you have two units that are literally used for the same purpose, one will always be mathematically more efficient.
The solution is to not do that kind of redundant options.

In the case of Conscripts vs Infantry Squads: You want cheap bodies, nothing more, so you take the cheaper body.
In the case of Assault Marines vs Vanguard Veterans, Vanguards are just Assault Marines +1. Sternguard and Tacticals have both their own clear use, but theres isn't that difference with Vanguard ones.
In the case of Basilisk vs Earthshaker, the Earthshaker was basically a Basilisk without useless things you didn't want anyway, so it was cheaper but it had the same offensive power and it was mathematically more efficient.

Lets put it this way. If you could chose between a cheap psyker for 30 points or a more expensive psyker that was literally the same in everything but comes with a Force Sword and Grenades for 50 points... what would to use? The cheap one, obviously, because that equipement is just redundant and it doesn't give the body anything you want anyway.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
the issue her would be that in the rock paper sissors lizard spock game that is warhammer 40k some armies can defeat a horde while some cannot. meanwhile some armies can only work as a horde (like orks) and any nerf to the ability to take a horde would in essence hurt already suffering armies. additionally several of your listed units are really not hard for most armies to deal with they just require taking less tank killing and more mass shots. for space marines mixing some heavy bolters in units and assault cannons on vehicles instead of lascannons everywhere works. though admittedly those heavy bolters will be useless in a fight against imperial knight house lists. That is why I like power level where both players know what they will play before putting equipment on usually the people who will want this kind of game were not likely to bring cheese anyway though to be honest). I would have preferred GW in making 8th to make all weapons on a unit the same cost in a category and just rebalance them. Example a lascannon retains current profile, same with missile launcher, but make the heavy bolter spew out enough shots to equal the points of both (likely 5-6 shots, or inversely keep heavy 3 heavy bolter and bring lascannon and missile down to D3 dmg) then one could decide when dropping the unit what heavy weapon they have issued based on available intelligence, or if they paid for a special weapon what special weapon they have.

You know, I always wondered if having a sideboard of 200-300 points wouldn't change things. MtG has a 15 card sideboard for changing out up to that many cards between games, all to try and ease rock/paper/scizzor matchups.

Of course it would make armies with more options stronger. But I suppose you could try and make it cost command points and have the side tbe static too; if you side for one unit, you have to side for all units in the sideboard. Facing a knight house and only have 1 devastator squads? Swap that veteran squad and some heavy bolter for the melta guns and another dev squad that was your sideboard. Then make it costs 5 command points to access said sideboard (could always adjust this so it costs more for toolbox/brigade armies). Now you have to choose if your odds of winning are worth the costs, meaning you'll only be touching the sideboard in extreme cases like the aforementioned knight house.

Guardsmen are undercosted. They should be 7ppm

The solution for the cheap fodder units should really be the morale issue. Seems like that’s the root issue to me. There’s a mechanic that makes them much easier to deal with, but then GW went way out of their way to ignore it as much as possible.

I'd be okay with this.

However, this won't fix all of the cheese.

Cheap army builds do exist outside of cheap troops.

You guys bother with troops? lol

ERJAK wrote:
You guys bother with troops? lol

In the first edition where troops actually matter because they can finally do what they are supposed to do? Where they actually do it so well that it has become a balance issue?
You bet i'm gonna bother with them!

Danny slag wrote:
Now a guardsman army shouldn't be 90% conscripts and an ork army shouldn't be 90% grots.

So, having 90% of your army be conscripts is a balance problem but having 90% of your army be the same number of superior guardsmen is fine?

Please explain what it is you think this accomplishes. Are you not aware of the CA conscript nerf?

Spoletta wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
You guys bother with troops? lol

In the first edition where troops actually matter because they can finally do what they are supposed to do? Where they actually do it so well that it has become a balance issue?
You bet i'm gonna bother with them!

I think ERJAK's point is that not all armies give a hoot about their troops units (like Sisters) or don't need to spam the same one over and over because they have a good spread of worthwhile choices like Eldar. Not all armies troop choices are the same.

To the OP. Sounds like you just want to put a 0 - ? limit on specific units just on the bottom end of the quality scale vs those on the top.

Danny slag wrote:

I disagree that it's all about points. Should conscripts cost the same as guardsman? Of course not, they're worse, but if you make them cheaper then they're too easy to cover an entire table with and win by default.
There's more to balance than point costs, army compesition is a huge piece to balance that I feel is oft ignored but is really where you can balance units away from cheese while still letting them be powerful and useful.

It's always a matter of points. Conscripts are not very good for their abilities, they're very good because they can screen a lot of cheap and effective shooty stuff. Make the AM firepower cost properly and conscripts/guardsmen won't be broken anymore. Screeners don't ruin the game, the units that are screened by the most effective ones do.

If AM loses much of their firepower than players would be forced to cut some screeners and bring other stuff to compensate. Honestly guardsmen and conscripts are decently balanced, solid troop choices but not that better compared to average troops. It's what they screen that makes AM overpowered and their screeners so valuable.

The only way to really fix the game is to tailor both lists in order to have a fair match. Otherwise you may have a balanced match or not, 40k is too unbalanced (and always will be) to create a formula that works most of the times.

The points should simply be adjusted, and outside of very rare circumstances, a fodder group should have poor leadership and suffer for it.

GW, as it very nearly always does, needs its rules writers to be far better at game balance, understanding their own rules and how they will interact with other armies. There are plenty of solutions, but the reality is that they should get the rules closer to correct in the first instance.

Under no circumstances (outside of a spelling or wording error) should two random guys on the internet get an advanced copy of the Codex, read it, and find glaring issues while reviewing it. If two normal players pick up on something that immediately (and it's often picked up immediately on the forums and other video channels) then it's something that should never have made it to print in the first place. The technical and game editing is really poor in some instances.

Across various codices there are just too many instances of "this model is heaps better...and costs 2 points more than the other one", etc. That shouldn't be the case at all, but remains a common theme. I think it's less egregious than previous editions, but it's still present.

can we take a moment to clarify why the OP thinks grots are a balance issue?

T2, 3 points, no save? Those grots?

 JNAProductions wrote:
You are aware that Infantry Squads are troops, are the same price as Conscripts, are only 1 PPM more expensive than what Conscripts used to be, and are far better?

This is entirely incorrect.

There was never a time before Conscripts and Commissars getting nerfed into the ground that someone said "Hey I think I'm going to take an Infantry Squad instead!".

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You are aware that Infantry Squads are troops, are the same price as Conscripts, are only 1 PPM more expensive than what Conscripts used to be, and are far better?

This is entirely incorrect.

There was never a time before Conscripts and Commissars getting nerfed into the ground that someone said "Hey I think I'm going to take an Infantry Squad instead!".

Thats how broken Conscripts where, that even one of the best troop unit in the game was totally eclipsed by them and their sinergy with Commisars.
But I'll don't derrail this topic with another Conscript discussion, feel free to answer this or PM me or something.

 Galas wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You are aware that Infantry Squads are troops, are the same price as Conscripts, are only 1 PPM more expensive than what Conscripts used to be, and are far better?

This is entirely incorrect.

There was never a time before Conscripts and Commissars getting nerfed into the ground that someone said "Hey I think I'm going to take an Infantry Squad instead!".

Thats how broken Conscripts were, that even one of the best troop unit in the game was totally eclipsed by them and their sinergy with Commisars.
But I'll don't derrail this topic with another Conscript discussion, feel free to answer this or PM me or something.

No, you don't get to dump and run to PMs.

Conscripts weren't broken. Nor was their synergy with Commissars. Not when you've got Tyranids doing the same thing, Iyanden doing the same thing, Valhallans doing the same thing with Pietrov's, and any future examples of this.

The Conscript nerfs just showcase that you cannot balance these things 100%.

Keep telling that Conscripts+Commisars weren't broken. Maybe someone will believe you someday, like the idea that a codex for both Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus is a bad thing.