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.

So it seems GW is having a really hard time giving units decent points cost. A unit is either trash no matter what, or god-mode with trait X

Which is kinda why I am starting to think Chapter tactic/Legion traits should be moved to Narrative/Open play only.
You can still be Raven Guard/Alpha Legion for the keywords, strats and relics in Matched Play, but if you want that -1 to be hit, you have to play Narrative.

I mean, your specific fluffy trait should only really apply if you are forging a Narrative, so taking it out of Matched play entirely could allow for more balanced points costs in CA2019.

Thoughts?

Then you're SUPER relegated to any faction with even a slightly good Special Character.

That also means Iron Hands are like the worst faction ever.

IOW, "remove faction traits entirely". No.

 Peregrine wrote:
IOW, "remove faction traits entirely". No.

Well, arguably Matched play shouldn't be the ONLY viable play mode, but here we are. I suppose.
The goal with this change is 3-fold:
A) Make armies count based on their units, not just their faction ability
B) Make it easier to truly give units appropriate points costs without X trait being auto-take to squeeze the most out of them
C) maybe make Narrative a valid play mode

But I guess none of that is possible

-

I'd totally be on board with this change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To put this in perspective consider the following armies
UltraMarines:
1xCaptain
1xLibbie
6xTacs
2xDevs
1xBiker Squad
1xASM
and
White Scars
1xCaptain
1xLibbie
4xTacs in Rhinos
2xDevs
2xBiker Squad

The second looks a lot more like White Scars than the first.

Now we add:
-The first army gets +1LD and can fallback and shoot at BS-1
-The second army can fallback and charge

Suddenly, we have two sets of random rules. The same Biker Squad with the same loadout behaves differently. And not in a way that's apparent from the models/wargear. It's just "I painted it red! It goes fast!" but for Marine players.

CTs were never needed to make an Uthwe army different from a Biel-Tan or Iyanden (and, in fact, you want Uthwe's for Biel-Tan or Iyanden, and Iyanden's or Biel-Tan's for Uthwe).

Yeah, that too. The traits tend to benefit units that aren't traditionally part of that force lorewise.

The only reason it matter is for Matched play, where you want the best units you can play. But the traits aren't meant for that, they are meant to add a bit of flavor to your list.
Ya know what that sounds like? Narrative play

-

I'm okay with that kind of ruling for tournaments, as tournaments already use the most boring missions (ITC) and bland armies . But let us fluff players alone. Faction traits are not the reason for unbalance, merely another layer of it. I totally disagree with the notion of " A unit is either trash no matter what, or god-mode with trait X". That might be true on dakkadakka, but not in real life. Traits give hints to preferred load outs and tactics with a unit, nothing more. My DG-helbrutes will focus on heavy weapons, my renegade Helbrutes focus on CC. And I like that.

That being said I'd like it if there were points costs for faction traits as well as warlord traits and relics.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I'm okay with that kind of ruling for tournaments, as tournaments already use the most boring missions (ITC) and bland armies . But let us fluff players alone. Faction traits are not the reason for unbalance, merely another layer of it. I totally disagree with the notion of " A unit is either trash no matter what, or god-mode with trait X". That might be true on dakkadakka, but not in real life. Traits give hints to preferred load outs and tactics with a unit, nothing more. My DG-helbrutes will focus on heavy weapons, my renegade Helbrutes focus on CC. And I like that.

That being said I'd like it if there were points costs for faction traits as well as warlord traits and relics.

Those are all good points.
I do indeed mean for ORGANIZED EVENTS, not necessarily Match Play. So I would amend my original Proposal to the following:

Special abilities given to detachments based on Faction Keyword do not apply in Organized Events.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
IOW, "remove faction traits entirely". No.

Well, arguably Matched play shouldn't be the ONLY viable play mode, but here we are. I suppose.
The goal with this change is 3-fold:
A) Make armies count based on their units, not just their faction ability
B) Make it easier to truly give units appropriate points costs without X trait being auto-take to squeeze the most out of them
C) maybe make Narrative a valid play mode

But I guess none of that is possible

-

It really isn't, and this whole Chapter differentiation thing is stuck, whether you like it or not, simply because of how it existed before on top of the snowflake Chapters getting their own codices for whatever reason.

For Marines, what you do is balance internally, taking out the consideration of Chapter Tactics existing (which is what should've been done with the Index lists, but wasn't whatsoever and arguably one of the worst periods of balance for 40k). Once you did that, you create your Chapter Tactics and make them relatively balanced. After THAT, you add 3-4 special units for those Chapters. THEN, lastly, balance in the Special Characters.

GW tried doing it all at once without having balanced the Index, which is why we have the problems we currently have.

That assumes that you can define 3 seperate, equally-balanced states consisting of:
1) Most of the rules (sans CTs and Chars)
2) Most of the rules + CTs
3) All of the rules

And have all 3 of those states balanced. Isn't that inherently a more difficult than the already-nigh-impossible task of balancing #3?

Bharring wrote:
That assumes that you can define 3 seperate, equally-balanced states consisting of:
1) Most of the rules (sans CTs and Chars)
2) Most of the rules + CTs
3) All of the rules

And have all 3 of those states balanced. Isn't that inherently a more difficult than the already-nigh-impossible task of balancing #3?

It all requires effort. However, that's why, in the proposed rules subforum, you saw me trying to internally balance the Marine codices, with consolidated Angels, and then ideas for like 3-4 units you get access to. I didn't touch the Chapter Tactics (though I had a few thoughts) or Special Characters just yet, because I believe the Index lists should've been the starting point of balance.

As I already pointed out though, since the Index lists were stupidly imbalanced, you can't balance those things just yet, but GW is trying to do all that at once.

Bharring wrote:
Suddenly, we have two sets of random rules. The same Biker Squad with the same loadout behaves differently.

...and how is that a bad thing, again?

Ultramarines in fluff fall back to prepared positions and fire on the enemy. White scars fall back and charge again, they even had a USR (hit and run) for multiple editions, too.

So you say army becoming fluffier and actually behaving like it does in the stories is a bad thing somehow?

You might as well delete all special rules and standardize movement of everything to 6 inches then, if we blanderize everything in the name of "balance". Why should one special rule be exempt from deletion when another is not just because it's printed a bit higher? Or better yet, make every model in the game S3 T3 4+ save, armed with S4 RF1 gun, then really there will be no confusion whatsoever

8th ed was most balanced during index times.

I don't mind dumbing the game down for organized events for the sake of balance.

Irbis,
To accept that UM sometimes fall back and fire into enemies but never fall back and charge, and White Scars never fall back and fire into enemies but sometimes fall back and charge is what gets weird.

I'd imagine UM to be more likely to fall back and fire into enemies than White Scars, but I imagine both do either, as the situation dictates.

This is especially pognient with UM, as their schtick is "Marines marines". They're the chapter most likely to say "Y'know, Korro had some good ideas. We should do what he did on Aedelasson IV here - bikers, fall back and charge those other guys!". Now, they're likely to have fewer Bikers than White Scars, so it's less likely to be a good idea, but they'd still do it.

Likewise, we *know* White Scars have said "Bobby G has had some good ideas" - after all, they're Codex Compliant. So, when a White Scars Tac squad has their Rhino blown up and gets charged by some Mutilators, why would they never take a hint from their brothers and step back a few paces and blast the Mutilators to bits?

I see UM vs WS as "we're more likely to have Tacs that want to fall back from CC so other stuff can hit them" vs "We have Bikes and more Rhinos, because we want to move up fast". I find army construction the better outlet for that difference.

Finally, consider these two armies:
UM:
6xTacs
2xDevs
1xASM
1xBikers
+gubbins

Versus
IF:
2xTacs
2xDevs
BA:
2xTacs
1xASM
WS:
2xTacs
1xBikers
+gubbins

Traits make the second option typically much better than the first. And then we have three different sets of Tacs in the same army with different rules. Just wonky.

Finally, consider this:
Uthwe theme lists should declare Iyanden or Biel-Tan to play Uthwe right.

Biel-Tan must declare Sam-Hainn or Uthwe to play Biel Tan right.

Iyanden must decalre Uthwe to play Iyanden right.

Although that final point is more GW screwing up the rules:fluff relation than traits being inherently bad. It is worth bringing up, though.

I really like the idea. It does make the Relics, characters, and stratagems unique to each sub-faction have a proportionately stronger weight to them, but relics, characters, and stratagems don't have army-wide applications, or cost points/slots/command points.

 skchsan wrote:
8th ed was most balanced during index times.

And other lies you can tell yourself!

"but relics, characters, and stratagems don't have army-wide applications, or cost points/slots/command points."
I think this is a good point in itself: Gman and Cat Lady are the two HQs that probably have the biggest army-wide applications. And we all know what *they've* done for balance.

Bharring wrote:
"but relics, characters, and stratagems don't have army-wide applications, or cost points/slots/command points."
I think this is a good point in itself: Gman and Cat Lady are the two HQs that probably have the biggest army-wide applications. And we all know what *they've* done for balance.

Well, at least they cost points, and they do constrain and allow for interesting decisions. G-man has received numerous points-adjustments in Chapter Approved and the like, and when you run him you're incentivized to run Ultramarines as opposed to Raven Guard, who have likely the strongest faction trait (-1 to hit). When someone goes all-in on Space Marines, they usually do Ultra for Bobby G, but Bobby-G isn't required in other builds. Take away traits, and Ultramarines becomes more of the de-facto choice for Space Marines for sure in a competitive setting, but you also lose the ability to just walk away from combat and shoot, which is significant. Gulliman, while very potent, doesn't have an army-wide application either outside of bonus Command Points. You have to stay close to him to benefit, and I've seen lots of players get pressured into situations where they have to leave his reroll bubble.

Cat Lady provides an army-wide application, for sure, but that's more because everyone else in the army changes types to fit with her. I don't think a loss of traits here would significantly change how much she sees play.

Well, at least they cost points, and they do constrain and allow for interesting decisions.

Aura effects that are that powerfull are a deterence for balance.
Take a look at the recent cultist hike because of fearless spamm shenanigans and now explain any non IW/ (H)armless csm player why his go to troop sucks even more.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Well, at least they cost points, and they do constrain and allow for interesting decisions.

Aura effects that are that powerfull are a deterence for balance.
Take a look at the recent cultist hike because of fearless spamm shenanigans and now explain any non IW/ (H)armless csm player why his go to troop sucks even more.

People are forgetting that we shouldn't balancing units around Strategems and Traits and buffs. We need to balance those three things around units.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Well, at least they cost points, and they do constrain and allow for interesting decisions.

Aura effects that are that powerfull are a deterence for balance.
Take a look at the recent cultist hike because of fearless spamm shenanigans and now explain any non IW/ (H)armless csm player why his go to troop sucks even more.

People are forgetting that we shouldn't balancing units around Strategems and Traits and buffs. We need to balance those three things around units.

Yep but sadly gw does not listen.
Infact i would favour it if you ' d pay a point or two for differing traits per unit.
Wayyy easier to balance then now.
Also auras, i am not a fan off.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Well, at least they cost points, and they do constrain and allow for interesting decisions.

Aura effects that are that powerfull are a deterence for balance.
Take a look at the recent cultist hike because of fearless spamm shenanigans and now explain any non IW/ (H)armless csm player why his go to troop sucks even more.

People are forgetting that we shouldn't balancing units around Strategems and Traits and buffs. We need to balance those three things around units.

Yep but sadly gw does not listen.
Infact i would favour it if you ' d pay a point or two for differing traits per unit.
Wayyy easier to balance then now.
Also auras, i am not a fan off.

Well if you wanna create new rules for Captains and Chaplain equivalents, be my guest.

However, I threw up (heh) my thoughts in another Marine thread on consolidating the Angels, how to balance the codex internally, and lastly the unique units for the Angels to keep, along with ideas for other Chapters.

I deliberately left out Traits and Special Characters though, because until an Index list can be balanced against others, you end up trying to do too much at once. Quite honestly, anyone saying the Index lists were super balanced are people just lying to themselves and somehow forgetting the first couple of months of 8th.

Never said the indexes were balanced. From conscripts to other malefics to brimstones to charachters missing the charachter keyword, the indexes were and sometimes are still questionable.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Never said the indexes were balanced. From conscripts to other malefics to brimstones to charachters missing the charachter keyword, the indexes were and sometimes are still questionable.

I never said YOU did. I'm saying posters like Bharring legit believe this.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Never said the indexes were balanced. From conscripts to other malefics to brimstones to charachters missing the charachter keyword, the indexes were and sometimes are still questionable.

I never said YOU did. I'm saying posters like Bharring legit believe this.

They do have a point though, it would've been easier to balance at that stage since traits would not interfere.

Well, I guess I'm not always right. I was viewing it through a microcosm of CWE. CWE was a lot more balanced index vs index.

Bharring wrote:
Well, I guess I'm not always right. I was viewing it through a microcosm of CWE. CWE was a lot more balanced index vs index.

While the Indexes were not balanced, they were far CLOSER to balance, mainly because there weren't Faction traits, relic, Stratagems, etc adding such variance between factions.
The more rules you add, the easier it is to skew the balance.

That's really the crux of this proposal to remove the Faction special abilities from Organized events. By removing that variance, you get about a dozen different Factions to deal with, rather than over 60 subfactions. That's much easier to track and compare that data.
It also paints a better picture of the armies that have better internal balance or have good units (Eldar) vs those that truly need help (Marines) and rely too heavily on allies

-

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Never said the indexes were balanced. From conscripts to other malefics to brimstones to charachters missing the charachter keyword, the indexes were and sometimes are still questionable.

I never said YOU did. I'm saying posters like Bharring legit believe this.

They do have a point though, it would've been easier to balance at that stage since traits would not interfere.

Well, it wasn't done, and just removing traits does nothing to magically make things balanced and really just removes the flavor on top of all that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Well, I guess I'm not always right. I was viewing it through a microcosm of CWE. CWE was a lot more balanced index vs index.

While the Indexes were not balanced, they were far CLOSER to balance, mainly because there weren't Faction traits, relic, Stratagems, etc adding such variance between factions.
The more rules you add, the easier it is to skew the balance.

That's really the crux of this proposal to remove the Faction special abilities from Organized events. By removing that variance, you get about a dozen different Factions to deal with, rather than over 60 subfactions. That's much easier to track and compare that data.
It also paints a better picture of the armies that have better internal balance or have good units (Eldar) vs those that truly need help (Marines) and rely too heavily on allies

-

You're deluding yourself if you truly believe the Index lists were more balanced.
They would've been EASIER to balance, but they themselves weren't even close and you know that deep in your heart.

It's called Chess.

Hmm. So I'm not totally opposed to it, but it seems to me that the most notorious lists don't care about their chapter tactics nearly as much as they care about certain stratagems, the innate statlines of certain units/weapons, or specific special abilities.

Like, a Castellan is good because stratagems allow it to be super durable and to bump up its damage output. Ynnari (who don't even have chapter tactics in the ynnari part of the army) are good because of Soulbursts.

Sure, BA smash captains are especially good because of their +1 to wound, and Alaitoc is kind of notorious, but I'm not sure chapter tactic equivalents are really at the heart of the most problematic competitive lists. Perhaps I"m mistaken?

Chapter tactics are not well-balanced against one another, but ignoring them during competitive play doesn't seem like it really addresses the main balance issues present in most armies either.