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.

ok. all the new stratagems/clans traits are all good and all. but it feels awfully familiar.

remember when 7th went out of control with formations. where codex creep was measured by what sweet combos and bonuses factions got for free? has it realy changed in 8th?

they both originally cost something to use. for the formations it required specific units, with some being a kinda "tax" for the bonuses, having to bring something that was normally not brought becasue it wasn't efficient enough. another limitation was specific formation requirements, forcing you to build your army a certain way.

in 8th with strats its all about having the cp to pay for them.

and so far i see them being abused.

in 7th, GW started making formations that were nothing but perks, requiring good units, and getting easily hundreds of extra points to add to your list. and some formations were so easy to customize, allowing players to bring what they want with no consequences.

in 8th there are more and more stratagems that require fewer CPs for some pretty broken bonuses. and some armies have access to easy to achieve battalions for cps. letting a faction like imperial knights who were never supposed to have so many cp to just have them in abundance through manipulation of the allies system.

the way i see it, nothing has changed. these buffs are 'windowdressing" to cover the very bad codex balance.

this is partially why many ork players are not happy with their codex. they got a lot of brokenly good stratagems, but they instead received barely any pts reductions.

it seems GW hopes we will forget concepts like "point efficiency" and "external/internal balance" by distracting us with more and more broken stratagems and faction traits.

what do you guys think? are the new stratagems a fine way to balance everything...or is this just like formations all over again?

What has changed is that GW are making (though probably not yet enough) effort to curb this. Which they never did in 7th.

They have upped the CP cost of some of the most abused Strats, and they have severely limited CP regeneration.

Now I still think soup is too abusable and more should be done, but that is a big shift from where we were a few years ago.

 Stux wrote:
What has changed is that GW are making (though probably not yet enough) effort to curb this. Which they never did in 7th.

They have upped the CP cost of some of the most abused Strats, and they have severely limited CP regeneration.

Now I still think soup is too abusable and more should be done, but that is a big shift from where we were a few years ago.

i will agree, they have shown more effort then they have ever before. putting out so many codexes is impressive. but while i dont like to seam ungrateful, but something just doesn't feel right about it.

they could've just focused on the pts, but now all their efforts seem to be on balancing the stratagems. id rather they balance the codexes instead.

geargutz wrote:

 Stux wrote:
What has changed is that GW are making (though probably not yet enough) effort to curb this. Which they never did in 7th.

They have upped the CP cost of some of the most abused Strats, and they have severely limited CP regeneration.

Now I still think soup is too abusable and more should be done, but that is a big shift from where we were a few years ago.

i will agree, they have shown more effort then they have ever before. putting out so many codexes is impressive. but while i dont like to seam ungrateful, but something just doesn't feel right about it.

they could've just focused on the pts, but now all their efforts seem to be on balancing the stratagems. id rather they balance the codexes instead.

At the risk of restarting a debate that's happened a bunch of times here before:

I don't think you can truly balance a mono codex within the current allies system. And CP and strats are a big part of that.

 Stux wrote:

I don't think you can truly balance a mono codex within the current allies system. And CP and strats are a big part of that.

just for clarity, do you mean they make it harder to balance the current system, or that they are there for balancing the current system?

What I don't like is that there is no reason to not take a clan trait/ chapter tactic.

Back in 3rd, if you wanted to use the Salamanders list say, there were some pretty hefty disadvantages that came with it (-1 initiative across the board, limited fast attack options)

geargutz wrote:

 Stux wrote:

I don't think you can truly balance a mono codex within the current allies system. And CP and strats are a big part of that.

just for clarity, do you mean they make it harder to balance the current system, or that they are there for balancing the current system?

I'm saying that the current system for generating CP, in combination with the detachment system and the allying this allows, makes it virtually impossible to have a mono codex be balanced against armies with allies. Especially if you want the armies that make up those allies to also be balanced when taken alone.

 Stux wrote:
What has changed is that GW are making (though probably not yet enough) effort to curb this. Which they never did in 7th.

They have upped the CP cost of some of the most abused Strats, and they have severely limited CP regeneration.

Now I still think soup is too abusable and more should be done, but that is a big shift from where we were a few years ago.

I don't know, maybe with stuff they didn't intend to be good in the first place like BA. But the stuff which they clearly want "OP" they just play as far as nerfs go. Not sure if it is the same in AoS, but in w40k when they do a change to eldar it doesn't seem much like a nerf. When GW nerfs a unit they make it unplayable, when they nerfed Inari, reapers etc those still stayed very powerful. Castellans are the same right now. Technicly the nerf to CP farm should mean we should see fewer of them. And all we see fewer are the BA captins, which were in deed nerfed hard.

But if what people say it is true, and 7th was much worse then 8th, then I guess it is good GW got rid of those formations. I just hope GK didn't have any good formations in the past. What were formations like in prior editions by the way. Were they just as strong in 5-6th ed? I know there was a huge rule shift between 2ed and 4th ed, with 3ed being a mess called eldar edtion.

Karol wrote:
What were formations like in prior editions by the way. Were they just as strong in 5-6th ed? I know there was a huge rule shift between 2ed and 4th ed, with 3ed being a mess called eldar edtion.

Formations didn't exist in 5th or 6th (except at the very tail end of 6th perhaps? I seem to remember a few formation sorta things got published a bit before 7th came out)

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Karol wrote:
What were formations like in prior editions by the way. Were they just as strong in 5-6th ed? I know there was a huge rule shift between 2ed and 4th ed, with 3ed being a mess called eldar edtion.

Formations didn't exist in 5th or 6th (except at the very tail end of 6th perhaps? I seem to remember a few formation sorta thing got published right before 7th came out)

So that is what people mean that they never left. Well IMO a good thing. People said that GK sucked in 6th and 7th, so they formations were probablly bad too. What is this thing about free points people mentioning about? Was it like some sort of reserv mechanic, that works like free summoning or something?

 Stux wrote:

I'm saying that the current system for generating CP, in combination with the detachment system and the allying this allows, makes it virtually impossible to have a mono codex be balanced against armies with allies. Especially if you want the armies that make up those allies to also be balanced when taken alone.

sounds like it would help with balance if allies didn't exist.
allies was an issue in 7th too. imperium players could just grab 2 formations from 2 completely different armies...just because "who cares about balance, imperium rules!!!"

i know you didnt want to bring up another discussion about allies. but unfortunately its attached to the whole issue. while both formations and cp are poor for balance and ripe for abuse, they are also both worse with the inclusion of allies. its unavoidable. allies is that big of a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Karol wrote:
What were formations like in prior editions by the way. Were they just as strong in 5-6th ed? I know there was a huge rule shift between 2ed and 4th ed, with 3ed being a mess called eldar edtion.

Formations didn't exist in 5th or 6th (except at the very tail end of 6th perhaps? I seem to remember a few formation sorta thing got published right before 7th came out)

So that is what people mean that they never left. Well IMO a good thing. People said that GK sucked in 6th and 7th, so they formations were probablly bad too. What is this thing about free points people mentioning about? Was it like some sort of reserv mechanic, that works like free summoning or something?

some formations literally gave you free dedicated transports for all units in the formation, or another formation gave free upgrades for everything. it was abused.

I think they could balance it by giving the ally option an actual down side. Right now if you take an ally, even not the most optimal one, you lose nothing. And if you take the good type of ally you gain a ton.

Ally taking should be balanced by some mechanic. Maybe some rules in both armies don't work when they are mixed.
Maybe ally should be limited to pre build detachments. So a IDF IG ally detachment looks like this and has to take those units, and comes with those rules and those CP. A space marine rapid deployment force looks like that. They could even make some cool stuff by mixing two armies in to a single detachment, by giving them interactions that exist only between models from that mixed detachment. And this way we could get IG man of ultramar defense forces that are different from regular IG, and more used to fighting along side marines etc.

IMO the balance of some sort could be achived, I just don't think GW wants stuff to be balanced. That is why I would like to get as OP codex as possible for my army, so OP that even nerfs wouldn't bring it down too much in playabilty. specially at my not world championish level of meta.

Iirc the formation that gave free upgrades (for Admech, right?) was also only officially available as part of some stupidly expensive 1-click bundle on the webstore, too.

God I do not miss the free Rhino/Drop Pod formations/decurions that Marines got one it.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Iirc the formation that gave free upgrades (for Admech, right?) was also only officially available as part of some stupidly expensive 1-click bundle on the webstore, too.

God I do not miss the free Rhino/Drop Pod formations/decurions that Marines got one it.

just wait, players are going to start complaining about the ork op half army telyport turn 2 evilzunz mega charge of doom.

again, its like formations. who cares for balanced pt efficient units when you can get the grater and sprinkle cheese on some things.

 Stux wrote:

geargutz wrote:

 Stux wrote:

I don't think you can truly balance a mono codex within the current allies system. And CP and strats are a big part of that.

just for clarity, do you mean they make it harder to balance the current system, or that they are there for balancing the current system?

I'm saying that the current system for generating CP, in combination with the detachment system and the allying this allows, makes it virtually impossible to have a mono codex be balanced against armies with allies. Especially if you want the armies that make up those allies to also be balanced when taken alone.

GW failed by not creating a baseline of points per CP or some other way of making sure that they had some level of parity between codex's.
This is exactly why stratageums etc can't be balanced between mono codex and allies.
When you have codex's paying 36 points per CP and codex's paying 170 points for a CP those strategums can never be balanced between codex's. At the end of the day as much as limiting CP per faction IMHO sucks we are now way too far down the rabbit hole in 8th edition mechanics for this to be addressed any other way.

Untill this is addressed mono anything is going to always be the weakest version of the codex.

geargutz wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Iirc the formation that gave free upgrades (for Admech, right?) was also only officially available as part of some stupidly expensive 1-click bundle on the webstore, too.

God I do not miss the free Rhino/Drop Pod formations/decurions that Marines got one it.

just wait, players are going to start complaining about the ork op half army telyport turn 2 evilzunz mega charge of doom.

again, its like formations. who cares for balanced pt efficient units when you can get the grater and sprinkle cheese on some things.

Honestly I don't think most people will.
The Bloodletter Bomb daemons can pull isn't really complained about since the "No DS T1" beta rules, and that's far scarier than a lot of the things orks can pull with their teleporta.

Everything is working as intended at the ol’ GW

Karol wrote:
But if what people say it is true, and 7th was much worse then 8th, then I guess it is good GW got rid of those formations.

To give you an idea of how bad it got - I had a basic mechanised sisters list at around 1300pts before weapons.
I could match that list model for model, gun for gun, for under 900pts playing space marines. That included army wide obsec, game long rerolls, and a complimentary power fist and combi-disintegrator.
The marine list in turn would be crushed by the shenanigans of the real tournament lists.

There was simply a very large gap in power between the haves and the have nots that started with codex escalation in 5th edition and just ramped up, though it was more than just the formation rules to blame.

I guess no change for a GK player then lol .

 Kroem wrote:
What I don't like is that there is no reason to not take a clan trait/ chapter tactic.

Back in 3rd, if you wanted to use the Salamanders list say, there were some pretty hefty disadvantages that came with it (-1 initiative across the board, limited fast attack options)

They clearly think they would not sell enough miniatures implementing the 0-1s and similar limitations.
My personal opinion is that this is wrong - if people have a limited army list, they will finish the army and move to the next. If one likes marines, it can end up building stuff from 9 legion descendants.

I personally think the old army composition chart plus the limitations made for fluffy and interesting armies with strengths and weaknesses.

People may not like me and will most likely disagree with me on this one, but I do miss formations. Being a hobbyist and not having time to play much, formations make picking the right models so much easier when the time to play did appear.

SG

 ServiceGames wrote:
People may not like me and will most likely disagree with me on this one, but I do miss formations. Being a hobbyist and not having time to play much, formations make picking the right models so much easier when the time to play did appear.

SG

It wasn't the basic idea of formations that was the problem, it was the implementation. The advantages they gave you were insane. Battalions in AoS, while I'm not that familiar with the game, look like a more sensible the same idea.

The key difference is adding in a points cost, so you have something to balance the benefit.

 Stux wrote:

 ServiceGames wrote:
People may not like me and will most likely disagree with me on this one, but I do miss formations. Being a hobbyist and not having time to play much, formations make picking the right models so much easier when the time to play did appear.

SG

It wasn't the basic idea of formations that was the problem, it was the implementation. The advantages they gave you were insane. Battalions in AoS, while I'm not that familiar with the game, look like a more sensible the same idea.

The key difference is adding in a points cost, so you have something to balance the benefit.

aos battalions were a good step, pts costs for running with the cool rules makes perfect sense. i was thinking 8th edition would implement this, but we got the cp system instead. and im not seeing much consistency in balance or fairness in the cp system. it reminds me of formations all over again. we just accept stratagems becasue they allow us to do cool stuff and by thinking the cp costs are balanced.

unfortunately, as seen with the ork codex pts, its apparent GW think this is the way they can balance factions now. no need to put much effort in improving the units of a faction when you can put out a stratagem that apparently was balanced with its cost around working with 10 completely different units.

welcome to new GW, same as the old GW.

geargutz wrote:

 Stux wrote:

I don't think you can truly balance a mono codex within the current allies system. And CP and strats are a big part of that.

just for clarity, do you mean they make it harder to balance the current system, or that they are there for balancing the current system?

an army that conists of expensive elite units is going to have less CPs then say... guard, and due to this their strats should proably be more effective on a point to point scale. but the problem is I can just take guard allies and side step that whole balance factor.

BrianDavion wrote:

geargutz wrote:

 Stux wrote:

I don't think you can truly balance a mono codex within the current allies system. And CP and strats are a big part of that.

just for clarity, do you mean they make it harder to balance the current system, or that they are there for balancing the current system?

an army that conists of expensive elite units is going to have less CPs then say... guard, and due to this their strats should proably be more effective on a point to point scale. but the problem is I can just take guard allies and side step that whole balance factor.

I think the issue is even deeper than that.

Army strengths and weaknesses are in part defined by what options are readily available and which areas they struggle in.

Allies without any restriction or penalty means you can shore up any army's designed weakness to make it irrelevant.

 Stux wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

geargutz wrote:

 Stux wrote:

I don't think you can truly balance a mono codex within the current allies system. And CP and strats are a big part of that.

just for clarity, do you mean they make it harder to balance the current system, or that they are there for balancing the current system?

an army that conists of expensive elite units is going to have less CPs then say... guard, and due to this their strats should proably be more effective on a point to point scale. but the problem is I can just take guard allies and side step that whole balance factor.

I think the issue is even deeper than that.

Army strengths and weaknesses are in part defined by what options are readily available and which areas they struggle in.

Allies without any restriction or penalty means you can shore up any army's designed weakness to make it irrelevant.

With those weaknesses though, the game can just end up being a glorified Rock-Paper-Scissors game. You don't want that do you?

It's all about that internal balance and external balance. Eliminating the fact I can take Guard Artillery if I wanted does nothing to fix the fact that the artillery options for Marines are bad, so why take them?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It's all about that internal balance and external balance. Eliminating the fact I can take Guard Artillery if I wanted does nothing to fix the fact that the artillery options for Marines are bad, so why take them?

But that's the point. With the allies never there then gw would have to balance the faction better. Heck, it might even encourage them to make new models for the army to diversify their playstyles.

It's easy for them to build so many types of knights and marines when any imperial faction can take them.
The allies hurts the game. Some of it is fluffy, but its horrible for balance.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

geargutz wrote:

 Stux wrote:

I don't think you can truly balance a mono codex within the current allies system. And CP and strats are a big part of that.

just for clarity, do you mean they make it harder to balance the current system, or that they are there for balancing the current system?

an army that conists of expensive elite units is going to have less CPs then say... guard, and due to this their strats should proably be more effective on a point to point scale. but the problem is I can just take guard allies and side step that whole balance factor.

I think the issue is even deeper than that.

Army strengths and weaknesses are in part defined by what options are readily available and which areas they struggle in.

Allies without any restriction or penalty means you can shore up any army's designed weakness to make it irrelevant.

With those weaknesses though, the game can just end up being a glorified Rock-Paper-Scissors game. You don't want that do you?

It's all about that internal balance and external balance. Eliminating the fact I can take Guard Artillery if I wanted does nothing to fix the fact that the artillery options for Marines are bad, so why take them?

I don't believe it's possible to have that level of balance without also having a level of homogeneity that makes factions not feel different enough.

So yes, there needs to be elements of rock paper scissors. But not in the sense that an army only brings rock, rather that an army can't reliably bring paper.

geargutz wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It's all about that internal balance and external balance. Eliminating the fact I can take Guard Artillery if I wanted does nothing to fix the fact that the artillery options for Marines are bad, so why take them?

But that's the point. With the allies never there then gw would have to balance the faction better. Heck, it might even encourage them to make new models for the army to diversify their playstyles.

It's easy for them to build so many types of knights and marines when any imperial faction can take them.
The allies hurts the game. Some of it is fluffy, but its horrible for balance.

I love what allies should do which is give an official mechanic to recreate the way many factions would fight and allows you to run fun colorful list. However GW is bad at balance within one book that's your army. I kinda miss the old 5th edition, here is your one FOC chart that everyone gets and troops and only troops score. This forced people to have to take a coherent army, not just the best from 3 books that have a bunch of interactions that push what each individual unit can do far beyond how it works in a mono book army.