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.

Because, to use Grey Knights and Daemons as an example, they make the game unbalanced.

Let's say we have a hypothetical army balance point. Call it 100. And take four armies-Marines, GK, Daemons, and Nids.

Marines are a solid 100.
Nids are a solid 100.
Daemons are a solid 100.
Grey Knights are a solid 100, but have a 20% bonus against Daemons.

Everything is balanced except a GK vs. Daemons match-up. That's not fair!

So, let's make GK 84. With their 20% bonus, they're at 100.8 against Daemons. A paltry difference.

But, wait! Now they SUCK against all other armies!

Okay, let's put GK back at 100, and make Daemons 120. Now Daemons are OP against all but GK.

It just doesn't work.

The way I see it to make GK be good against Daemons without making them impossible to balance is to make it so their PREFERRED PLAYSTYLE is good against Daemon's preferred playstyle.

Let's say Daemons rely a lot on buffing characters that are individually kinda weak. Make GK's usual playstyle assassin-like. The kind of army that excels on taking out supporting characters.

But, still have them be complete armies that CAN play against type, so it's not an automatic loss or victory for anyone.

Does that make sense?

Also, note on the "GK are balanced at 100 right now": That is a COMPLETE HYPOTHETICAL! They suck right now. Really hard.

Yeah. If your going to have a buff against a certain enemy, that enemy needs something against you.

Vengeance for Cadia is a good example of this. Cadia is already great, and then they get an extra FU button vs Chaos?

Yep. It's why I hate Death to the False Emperor. It's a bad rule, and should be removed.

The old Daemonhunters had a great rule. I can't remember what vs daemons buff they got but they gave daemons the ability to come back from the dead in an endless tide. Or something, I can't exactly remember. The point was that they were really good against daemons but only got sent to really powerful daemon incursions.

I wonder if you could get something similar now. Like if Yarrick gave out his anti-ork buff, but orks really wanted to kill him and got something too.

 Trickstick wrote:
The old Daemonhunters had a great rule. I can't remember what vs daemons buff they got but they gave daemons the ability to come back from the dead in an endless tide. Or something, I can't exactly remember. The point was that they were really good against daemons but only got sent to really powerful daemon incursions.

I wonder if you could get something similar now. Like if Yarrick gave out his anti-ork buff, but orks really wanted to kill him and got something too.

It's possible, but it seems way too easy to mess up.

Better to just balance to one point, than to balance everyone to one point, but X vs. Y are balanced to a higher degree but ONLY against each other...

 Trickstick wrote:
The old Daemonhunters had a great rule. I can't remember what vs daemons buff they got but they gave daemons the ability to come back from the dead in an endless tide. Or something, I can't exactly remember. The point was that they were really good against daemons but only got sent to really powerful daemon incursions.

Codex DH allowed lesser daemonic packs to be returned. Current daemons have a version of that as a stratagem.

A.T. wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
The old Daemonhunters had a great rule. I can't remember what vs daemons buff they got but they gave daemons the ability to come back from the dead in an endless tide. Or something, I can't exactly remember. The point was that they were really good against daemons but only got sent to really powerful daemon incursions.

Codex DH allowed lesser daemonic packs to be returned. Current daemons have a version of that as a stratagem.

Which is (in its current iteration) awful. For the reasons I listed.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Does that make sense?

No. This is complete fallacy that would work only if the armies were identical.

Imagine a faction which due to game rules is weak against hordes, but strong versus elites. It is given anti-horde rule to balance it. Surprise! It doesn't mean it's now magically 20% better against elites too!

Would you call the above an improvement? If not, why? All it did is patching glaring hole despite being bonus against specific thing. I'd call it a win-win.

I find this thread kinda funny, though, because GK in 5th edition were pretty okay, well rounded army on their own, they did have weaknesses that gave other factions a chance to beat them but it was mostly a fair fight for both sides, yes, even the dreaded "bonus" they had was pretty okay (well, if you were to abuse their psychic powers daemons had uphill fight but it was not because of the army rules). The writer who did that book was actually competent, though, and got the fact GK need some advantages they could use to mitigate their lack of bodies in the form of psybolts, sanctuary and hammerhand - and it worked. Alas, then GK were handed for 3 editions to incompetents who only ever took away options for no reason, pretty much ruining the army...

Not to mention on the flip side you have armies that are 100% ineffective against certain things which is also terrible design

For example when flying circus first became a thing and very few armies had any anti air, and some armies never got any anti air at all, forcing soup or shelving your army.

that was fun having to sit out 2 editions because my army fundamentally could not play a game anymore when literally every player in my location was playing some form of flying circus at the time.

but to the point i fully agree army wide buffs vs another faction is stupid and should be removed. is it slaanesh marines that have the banner that improved their death to the false emperor to a 5+? talk about 100% useless and a waste of points vs 50% of the armies in the game...

 Trickstick wrote:
The old Daemonhunters had a great rule. I can't remember what vs daemons buff they got but they gave daemons the ability to come back from the dead in an endless tide. Or something, I can't exactly remember. The point was that they were really good against daemons but only got sent to really powerful daemon incursions.

I wonder if you could get something similar now. Like if Yarrick gave out his anti-ork buff, but orks really wanted to kill him and got something too.

I actually think the Aeldari Ancient Doom rule does this pretty well. My craftworlders are mostly not great in melee, but they get a small offensive bonus against Slaaneshi units. However, they also lose more dudes to morale when they're near Slaaneshi units. It's fluffy and powerful enough to impact the game, but I never feel like it gives me a major advantage over the Slaaneshi army. Especially if I'm not fielding melee units.

I think the key here is to recognize that "balance" in 40k isn't achieved by keeping all armies at 100; that's simply impossible with all the variables present. Instead, the goal is to get all armies within X (let's say 10) points of each other. So if one army in the game is at 97, then no armies in the game should be lower than 87 or higher than 107. Rules that give you an advantage over specific armies should strive to be of small enough value that they don't take the army outside of that 10 point target area. So if tyranids are at 97 and GK against most armies are at a 102, then the bonuses the anti-daemon rules GK have should not be worth more than 5 points.

Alternatively, anti-faction rules might simply change up the playstyle of the army. To use the above example, maybe GK have access to a stratagem or special rule that makes them really good at isolating and killing suppport characters but also lowers their overall defense ("This evil miasma wars against my aegis, brothers!) thus lowering the net change in power level when facing daemons. Such a rule might take GK from a 102 to a 104 or even a 101 when facing daemons. Which is fine because it keeps their power level within the accepted range. It just feels like a flavorfully different game because they tactics they use have to change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irbis wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Does that make sense?

I find this thread kinda funny, though, because GK in 5th edition were pretty okay, well rounded army on their own, they did have weaknesses that gave other factions a chance to beat them but it was mostly a fair fight for both sides, yes, even the dreaded "bonus" they had was pretty okay (well, if you were to abuse their psychic powers daemons had uphill fight but it was not because of the army rules). The writer who did that book was actually competent, though, and got the fact GK need some advantages they could use to mitigate their lack of bodies in the form of psybolts, sanctuary and hammerhand - and it worked. Alas, then GK were handed for 3 editions to incompetents who only ever took away options for no reason, pretty much ruining the army...

*Evil laughter*

Not to give a certain 5th edition codex writer a hard time (he's dragged through the mud enough as it is), but I'm not sure you'll find a lot of people share your views regarding 5th edition GK.

My favorite part is people calling 5th edition GK 'well built and balanced' when even their existence meant Daemons might as well not.

Interceptors with warp quake. I bet you daemon players thought you could get away with deplyoing your army! Bet you feel silly now!

One of these days, GW will realize that they shouldn't put bonuses against a faction in the model datasheets. They should instead be in Stratagems. That way, you can use them when applicable, but you don't end up paying for something you can't use in every other game.

I feel like you're not taking the whole thing into thought.

Typically armies that have faction bonuses against one (Greyknights vs Daemons) also have as strong bonuses turned against them (Daemons vs Greyknights).

This can be seen for Chaos vs Space marines and Space Marines vs Chaos. The idea is that it's a two way street and so the bonuses cancel each other out.

I agree with the OP. Bonuses against specific factions are too situational. They may be good in some campaign and open play.

My army has 25% of its choices able to re-roll hits vs... Fallen. An army with probably less players than Sisters of Silence.

Ugh. @Alextroy's idea is way better than hard-coded rules (my army also has a stratagem that works only vs CSM - and it is much more used than the re-roll vs Fallen)

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Yeah. If your going to have a buff against a certain enemy, that enemy needs something against you.

Vengeance for Cadia is a good example of this. Cadia is already great, and then they get an extra FU button vs Chaos?

Bit of a bad example there as Chaos units do actually get a bonus vs Imperium units with "Death to the False Emperor!".

Hahaha. Good thing Yarrick gives rerolls of all attack rolls for Astra Militarum units within 6" against Orks... Seems fair. My cheap old man becomes a Chapter Master for free when facing Orks.

Free bonuses against an entire faction are indeed stupid. I don't mind if both sides get something as a thematic thing, but then again you are just burdening the game with more rules for no net effect.

Silver bullet stratagems sound reasonable but should be costed assuming they are used at maximum efficiency every time, not some weird average GW likes to do.

 Trickstick wrote:
The old Daemonhunters had a great rule. I can't remember what vs daemons buff they got but they gave daemons the ability to come back from the dead in an endless tide. Or something, I can't exactly remember. The point was that they were really good against daemons but only got sent to really powerful daemon incursions.

I wonder if you could get something similar now. Like if Yarrick gave out his anti-ork buff, but orks really wanted to kill him and got something too.

Which is back, albeit in the Daemon book; 1CP returns a Daemon unit wiped out by GK. And if you’re running horde Daemons (with CA Daemonette drop, PB tar pit, Horror or ‘Letter bomb)... yeah, it’s good. Doesn’t feel unfair against anyone else on paper. Seems a good use. Use your CP to return or do other things with. It feels like a legit option, and not forced down any player’s throat.

 Blackie wrote:
I agree with the OP. Bonuses against specific factions are too situational. They may be good in some campaign and open play.

I think that would be a good way to go. I wish that each codex came with a small set of Narrative Play stratagems and things like bonuses against other factions could go in there.

For these kind of things to be removed, GW would have to decide whether they want to base their rules on what is most realistic, what is most fluffy, or what is most balanced in a competitive environment. Right now they want to eat their cake, have their cake, and blow it up, too.

The ideal way to do faction-specific bonuses to preserve personality would be small and/or reciprocal bonuses (there was an old Space Wolf book at one point that gave the Space Wolves Hatred (Dark Angels and Thousand Sons), but gave Dark Angels/Thousand Sons Hatred (Space Wolves) back in the same paragraph). Or the way the WHFB Civil War book worked where you had a table to roll on that gave both armies the same bonus if you had two armies of the same faction fighting each other (which isn't perfectly fair since one army might benefit more from the bonus than the other, but in a non-spammy environment both players have the same chance of getting something interesting).

I think that all armies should be more well rounded. Does that GK have a laser cannon? No, it fires a beam of Pure light of holy Sol to fight Daemons of darkness... but it does do a good job on heavy armor too. Why do the GK have siege engines? To deal with possessed fortifications, obviously.

If they want to do something with an army getting specific bonuses against another, they should do a book about nemesis matches. Daemons vs GK, Yarric vs Ghaz, SW vs TS, etc. Both sides bring something extra and have different stratagems, scenarios, and such for their hated foes. The best part would be that if you just wanted to play a simple, straight game, you just don't use the book. If you both want a game that is a bit extra, haul it out.

It's almost like some armies aren't intended to work in a setting where both players are evenly... matched.

Seriously, Grey Knights should only be used in Narrative play. I get the models look fantastic and fair play to you for using them, but just give up already and use Counts-as Custodes rules when playing pick-up games.

They tried making Grey Knights good against all armies... and look what happened. Glares at Matt Ward

Generally I think it's really bad design to have a rule that specifically punishes another faction.

In theory, having a symmetric bonus is fine. GKs can be strong against Daemons so long as Daemons get something in return. And clearly GW have tried to do this. Unfortunately what they gave Daemons is way too powerful!

I also really dislike Death To The False Emperor. There's really no mechanical or balance reason Chaos should get a quite significant bonus against the Imperium and not other factions. If you want to give them an ability like that, there needs to be something reciprocal.

I can't count how many times I've lost a game because my faction rule is overcosted when I'm not going up against Slanesh!

/sarcasm.

In general I am not a fan of faction-specific bonuses, but I think Grey Knight's bonuses vs. Deamons is actually a good example of where faction-specific bonuses work. And I'm not talking good in the fluff sense but actually good for game balance. You see Grey Knights have to pay a premium for their models because they are loaded to the teeth in power weapon. However, Deamons across the board rely on invaluable saves making the vast majority of Grey Knights weapons sub-optimal against the Deamon faction. The anit-Deamon faction-specific bonuse actually helps balance this.

 alextroy wrote:
One of these days, GW will realize that they shouldn't put bonuses against a faction in the model datasheets. They should instead be in Stratagems. That way, you can use them when applicable, but you don't end up paying for something you can't use in every other game.

This.

But you know some nerd would use the stratagem existing as a reason that the army is 'unfair' or something. :/

Still, I feel like it'd be an improvement. Make things like Death to the False Emperor and GK vs Daemons into a stratagem and then focus on internally balancing each faction against each other.

It's the same as thinking that a chapter tactic that gives you a 6+++ FNP is the same as a chapter tactic that lets you fall back and shoot. It's just ridiculous.

Maybe the "answer" is something like this....Grey Knights get a bonus vs Daemons, and Daemons get a bonus of CP, when fighting GK...? +1 CP per 500 pts of GK? (so soup works)